# F35 - superfighter or lame duck?



## Indofred

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate



> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run



Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?


----------



## longknife

It is a very serious problem.

Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.

They got what they should've expected.


----------



## Indofred

So, in your opinion, it could be a serious mess.
I'm going to have to read a lot more, but it looks dodgy on the surface.


----------



## westwall

It is a serious POS.  Over budget and under performing.


----------



## Indofred

Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
The Royal navy are going to be serious miffed. Question is, what would possess the British MOD to but a possibly dodgy bit of kit?

PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.


----------



## Mad Scientist

But it creates jobs and that's all that matters.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.


----------



## Swagger

Indofred said:


> Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
> The Royal navy are going to be serious miffed. Question is, what would possess the British MOD to but a possibly dodgy bit of kit?
> 
> PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.



When the MoD approved the adoption of the utterly useless SA-80 A1, it was later discovered that several of its fiercest advocates in Parliament held shares in BAE Systems, the weapon's manufacturer. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was the case with the F35. Additionally, the Admiralty have also voiced support for a navalised version of the Typhoon, but Parliament wouldn't listen. I wonder why.


----------



## Indofred

Swagger said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
> The Royal navy are going to be serious miffed. Question is, what would possess the British MOD to but a possibly dodgy bit of kit?
> 
> PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the MoD approved the adoption of the utterly useless SA-80 A1, it was later discovered that several of its fiercest advocates in Parliament held shares in BAE Systems, the weapon's manufacturer. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was the case with the F35. Additionally, the Admiralty have also voiced support for a navalised version of the Typhoon, but Parliament wouldn't listen. I wonder why.
Click to expand...


I suggest the possibility of a few greased palms, as I suspect, you do.
The SA 80 was a clear case of cash vs. common sense.
If I recall, something like 50% were returned as faulty on post delivery testing, and the thing couldn't be fired from the left without risk of serious injury.
I believe, without checking, he government of the time were out to privatise the factory, so needed it to look busy and profitable.

There's bound to be some 'friendly' cash in a few pockets here.
At least the Typhoon, whilst way over budget, works.


----------



## westwall

Delta4Embassy said:


> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.








The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.


----------



## Mushroom

longknife said:


> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.



I think you mean the Harrier (AV8B), not the Osprey (OV-22).

And I for one have long recognized that the first run of just about any military equipment does not perform exactly as advertised.  The M-16 was not reliable until the A1, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers were not really world class until the last of the first gens were launched, and the F-18 was originally rejected by the Navy, only being accepted after many years of upgrades and modifications.

And yes, a replacement for the Harrier is badly needed.  An upgrade of the Vietnam era Harrier, even the youngest Marine Harrier II is over a decade old, and it is time to start seriously working on their replacement.

And yes, it is still needed.  For a Marine Amphibious Force, this is often their only air to air defense when they are separated from a Carrier Battle Group.

I have worked with a great many pieces of equipment in the military over the years, and it had always gone through many modifications, so that it barely resembled the original models.  And if somebody has a good eye, they can spot them.






That is a First Generation PATRIOT Missile launcher, a piece of equipment I am very familiar with.  That one happens to be a the museum at the White Sands Missile Range (where I have inspected it in detail).






And there is a PAC III 3rd generation launcher.  I can spot at least 7 differences in a 1 second glance to tell one from the other.  Could the original shoot down an inbound ballistic missile?  No.  Could the original be rapidly emplaced with the entire Battery ready to fight in less then an hour?  No.  Was it able to do it's original job and shoot down enemy aircraft within 2 hours?  Yes.

In short, I do not see this as a boondoggle.  I simply see it as a program that is badly needed, to replace equipment that is dangerously close to the end of it's lifespan.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean the Harrier (AV8B), not the Osprey (OV-22).
> 
> And I for one have long recognized that the first run of just about any military equipment does not perform exactly as advertised.  The M-16 was not reliable until the A1, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers were not really world class until the last of the first gens were launched, and the F-18 was originally rejected by the Navy, only being accepted after many years of upgrades and modifications.
> 
> And yes, a replacement for the Harrier is badly needed.  An upgrade of the Vietnam era Harrier, even the youngest Marine Harrier II is over a decade old, and it is time to start seriously working on their replacement.
> 
> And yes, it is still needed.  For a Marine Amphibious Force, this is often their only air to air defense when they are separated from a Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> I have worked with a great many pieces of equipment in the military over the years, and it had always gone through many modifications, so that it barely resembled the original models.  And if somebody has a good eye, they can spot them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a First Generation PATRIOT Missile launcher, a piece of equipment I am very familiar with.  That one happens to be a the museum at the White Sands Missile Range (where I have inspected it in detail).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is a PAC III 3rd generation launcher.  I can spot at least 7 differences in a 1 second glance to tell one from the other.  Could the original shoot down an inbound ballistic missile?  No.  Could the original be rapidly emplaced with the entire Battery ready to fight in less then an hour?  No.  Was it able to do it's original job and shoot down enemy aircraft within 2 hours?  Yes.
> 
> In short, I do not see this as a boondoggle.  I simply see it as a program that is badly needed, to replace equipment that is dangerously close to the end of it's lifespan.
Click to expand...






I am all for upgrading military equipment, and yes, nothing performs as advertised.  However, the amount of money being squandered on the F-35 is horrific.  That money could be used to upgrade small arms, artillery and other essential equipment that will actually get use in a low intensity warfare arena.  The F-35 was designed to fight the Soviet Union and I would rather have the 14 A-10's that the money for a single F-35 would buy.

To be honest I am rather jaundiced when it comes to "stealth" aircraft.  You simply don't need all aircraft to be stealthy.  There are few operators with the capability to deal with 4th Gen aircraft as they stand now.  Even more ridiculous is the stealthy Littoral Combat Vessel.  I have never seen a stealth ship operating off shore, hide from the trusty old MK I eyeball.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> I am all for upgrading military equipment, and yes, nothing performs as advertised.  However, the amount of money being squandered on the F-35 is horrific.  That money could be used to upgrade small arms, artillery and other essential equipment that will actually get use in a low intensity warfare arena.  The F-35 was designed to fight the Soviet Union and I would rather have the 14 A-10's that the money for a single F-35 would buy.
> 
> To be honest I am rather jaundiced when it comes to "stealth" aircraft.  You simply don't need all aircraft to be stealthy.  There are few operators with the capability to deal with 4th Gen aircraft as they stand now.  Even more ridiculous is the stealthy Littoral Combat Vessel.  I have never seen a stealth ship operating off shore, hide from the trusty old MK I eyeball.



No, it was *not* designed to fight the Soviet Union.  If you follow it's development, it was originally the Joint Strike Fighter, a 1993 program that merged 2 older programs after the Soviet Union collapsed.

And the idea is to create a next generation fighter, to replace ones that were expected to be reaching the end of their lifespan at the start of the 2020's.  It was from it's beginning a long term program, and was never intended to deliver combat aircraft within a decade.  It was to deliver aircraft in 20 years that would serve for another 30-40 years.

And trying to design equipment as you are suggesting (fighting in a low intensity theatre) is the most sure way to loose the next war.  Remember the old saw that states that the surest way to loose the next war is to plan to repeat your most recent one.  You are making the same mistake so many do, in that you are expecting that every war we will ever fight in the future will be a repeat of Gulf Wars I, II and Afghanistan.

If we follow your blueprint, and say get involved in a war with Russia, China, or some European power, we will have our assets royally handed to us.  Because fleets of A-10s would be hamburger to a nation with sophisticated air defense capabilities.

Because in a high intensity battlespace, you need aircraft like the F-35 to open the way for and protect the A-10s and other various attack aircraft (like the AC-130 or AV8B).


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all for upgrading military equipment, and yes, nothing performs as advertised.  However, the amount of money being squandered on the F-35 is horrific.  That money could be used to upgrade small arms, artillery and other essential equipment that will actually get use in a low intensity warfare arena.  The F-35 was designed to fight the Soviet Union and I would rather have the 14 A-10's that the money for a single F-35 would buy.
> 
> To be honest I am rather jaundiced when it comes to "stealth" aircraft.  You simply don't need all aircraft to be stealthy.  There are few operators with the capability to deal with 4th Gen aircraft as they stand now.  Even more ridiculous is the stealthy Littoral Combat Vessel.  I have never seen a stealth ship operating off shore, hide from the trusty old MK I eyeball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was *not* designed to fight the Soviet Union.  If you follow it's development, it was originally the Joint Strike Fighter, a 1993 program that merged 2 older programs after the Soviet Union collapsed.
> 
> And the idea is to create a next generation fighter, to replace ones that were expected to be reaching the end of their lifespan at the start of the 2020's.  It was from it's beginning a long term program, and was never intended to deliver combat aircraft within a decade.  It was to deliver aircraft in 20 years that would serve for another 30-40 years.
> 
> And trying to design equipment as you are suggesting (fighting in a low intensity theatre) is the most sure way to loose the next war.  Remember the old saw that states that the surest way to loose the next war is to plan to repeat your most recent one.  You are making the same mistake so many do, in that you are expecting that every war we will ever fight in the future will be a repeat of Gulf Wars I, II and Afghanistan.
> 
> If we follow your blueprint, and say get involved in a war with Russia, China, or some European power, we will have our assets royally handed to us.  Because fleets of A-10s would be hamburger to a nation with sophisticated air defense capabilities.
> 
> Because in a high intensity battlespace, you need aircraft like the F-35 to open the way for and protect the A-10s and other various attack aircraft (like the AC-130 or AV8B).
Click to expand...









Yes, I am all for developing the new aircraft.  the F-22 while still enduring teething problems IS our fifth gen fighter.  Keep developing that.  The problem with having one airframe do a whole bunch of jobs is they never do any of those jobs very well.  

You tell me, which would you rather have supporting you in the trenches in ANY conflict, a very nice, fast mover that is stealthy but not the best CAS platform, or an upgraded A-10?  

Would you rather have an airframe that had to make sacrifices to meet one mission or a dedicated VSTOL airframe that had to make none?

And yes, the F-35 is a marriage of TWO aircraft requirements....that were originally intended to fight the Soviet Union.  Thank you for making my point.  If we really wanted to make a improvement to our universal war fighting capabilities, we would restart the F-22 production line, restart the A-10 production line, retire the F-15s and to fill the role of a multipurpose light, fast strike fighter introduce the F-16XL Cranked Arrow to bridge the gap of the fast mover attack aircraft.






Helicopter wise they could bring back the AH-56 Cheyenne which is a far more capable helicopter than the AH-64 and with the new manufacturing techniques we have it would be a world beater.






In other words, there are loads of weapons that could be brought on line, that would increase our war fighting capabilities for a fraction of the cost of the F-35.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> Would you rather have an airframe that had to make sacrifices to meet one mission or a dedicated VSTOL airframe that had to make none?



The problem here is though that we *need* a new VSTOL aircraft.

And by itself, there is no way the Marines can support the funding by themselves.

The Harrier is a 50 year old design, and needs to be replaced.  And the capability is needed.

And you keep concentrating on VSTOL, even though only 1 of the 3 models has that capability.  Only the Marine version will have that capability, not the Air Force or Navy versions.

You want to scrap the entire program, leaving the military with nothing for another 20 years.  Only the Air Force can use the F-22.  Not the Navy, not the Marine Corps.

Now that is stupidity if you ask me.  Wanting to concentrate on one service, and letting the other two suffer and stagnate.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have an airframe that had to make sacrifices to meet one mission or a dedicated VSTOL airframe that had to make none?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is though that we *need* a ne VSTOL aircraft.
> 
> And by itself, there is no way the Marines can support the funding by themselves.
> 
> The Harrier is a 50 year old design, and needs to be replaced.  And the capability is needed.
> 
> And you keep concentrating on VSTOL, even though only 1 of the 3 models has that capability.  Only the Marine version will have that capability, not the Air Force or Navy versions.
> 
> You want to scrap the entire program, leaving the military with nothing for another 20 years.  Only the Air Force can use the F-22.  Not the Navy, not the Marine Corps.
> 
> Now that is stupidity if you ask me.  Wanting to concentrate on one service, and letting the other two suffer and stagnate.
Click to expand...








There have been compromises made to the airframe so that it can have a V/TOL capability.  Believe me I know all about the F-35 as I have been following it since its inception and have friends in the industry.  I am also a pilot, so understand the compromises that have to be made to have a one size fits all airframe.  

I understand the Harrier is a 50 year old design.  It is also an airframe that can be updated and it has the advantage that ALL of the basic aerodynamic research has been done.

Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.


You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.


----------



## Synthaholic

_*F35 - superfighter or lame duck?   *_


Make-Work government program for defense contractors, and every Congressman's district.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.


What?

So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.

How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?


----------



## Indofred

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
Click to expand...


The Harrier has been around for a very long time, but it has also proven to work extremely well.
The more I read about its replacement, the more I think the harrier should be kept in service. I'm of the opinion the British government have seriously messed up here.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
Click to expand...








You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?


I'm fairly skeptical that getting a harrier from a 300 mile combat radius to 450+ is as simple as redesigning wings and throwing a new engine in there, you're still stuck with the same design of all your your thrust coming from four little rotating nozzles, and retrofitting the distributed aperture system, EOTS, and AESA radar would add weight.

The ability go fast and go stealthy is always better than not having that ability, dismissing that as useless because the harrier was limited in capability doesn't make sense to me. If an amphibious ship carrying F-35s instead of Harriers suddenly has the ability to fly CAP against modern air threats or carry out strike missions in contested airspace that is a win.

I still don't see how the harrier remains better even if it did match the F-35s range and you retrofitted all the electronics. You'd have two VSTOL aircraft, one of which is much faster, can carry more ordinance, can also function as an air superiority fighter, and has the ability to fly strike missions into airspace the Harrier could not. That sounds like the better one to me.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly skeptical that getting a harrier from a 300 mile combat radius to 450+ is as simple as redesigning wings and throwing a new engine in there, you're still stuck with the same design of all your your thrust coming from four little rotating nozzles, and retrofitting the distributed aperture system, EOTS, and AESA radar would add weight.
> 
> The ability go fast and go stealthy is always better than not having that ability, dismissing that as useless because the harrier was limited in capability doesn't make sense to me. If an amphibious ship carrying F-35s instead of Harriers suddenly has the ability to fly CAP against modern air threats or carry out strike missions in contested airspace that is a win.
> 
> I still don't see how the harrier remains better even if it did match the F-35s range and you retrofitted all the electronics. You'd have two VSTOL aircraft, one of which is much faster, can carry more ordinance, can also function as an air superiority fighter, and has the ability to fly strike missions into airspace the Harrier could not. That sounds like the better one to me.
Click to expand...







I'm not saying it's useless but it's not needed in the CAS role.  The A-10 has taken hits from IR missiles but I can't think of a single hit from a guided missile.  As far as range go's the lengthened airframe allows a redesign of the two forward nozzles to a single mid-mounted as in the F-35, and the re-profiled wings get you the increased fuel.  The avionics upgrades are no more difficult than it was to replace my old steam gauges with the Aspen Evolution 2500 Flight Display.  It's just money, and it is way cheaper to do that then buy the F-35 at 165 million a pop.

Also, to carry as much as they say it can, the F-35 would have to hang the ordnance on external hard points so your stealthyness just disappeared anyway.

Air superiority is not the job of CAS.  It just isn't.  That being said, the Harriers were more than a match for the Mirages that the Argentines were fielding.  All of which were much faster than the Harrier.  The British didn't lose a single aircraft in air to air combat.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.



I would think that is pretty obvious to be honest.

The F-22 is not carrier capable.

The Air Force can easily adapt any Navy or Marine aircraft, since they work entirely from the ground.  But the Navy and Marine Corps can only use aircraft designed form the ground up to work off of a carrier.

The F-4 Phantom II was developed for the Navy, as a carrier based fighter from the start.  You can't convert the F-22 into a carrier based aircraft, without completely rebuilding it.



SteadyMercury said:


> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?



Yea, pretty much what I thought also.

The Harrier is really only good for giving CAS in an uncontested airspace, and giving some fighter support to a Marine Amphibious group.

And also he is missing a key factor, that the F-35 is not just for domestic use.  The UK is also heavily invested in this program, and this is to be their replacement aircraft for their naval forces as well.  Kill this, and we are also stabbing an ally in the back.

And finally, he is basically talking about a complete redesign of the Harrier.  How much does the think that will cost?  And how long will it take?  I would be the cost would be huge, essentially it is the creation of an entirely new aircraft.

As for external hardpoints and stealth, stealth does not mean invisible.  The only invisible jet in the world is flown by Wonder Woman.  But even with external hardpoints, a stealthy aircraft is still harder to detect then a non-stealthy one.

These are basic points I find I have to make to people over and over and over again.  No matter how good the "stealth" is, no aircraft is invisible.  Even Saddam in 1990 was able to see our F-117s approaching.  They simply could not get enough of a RADAR fix to lock on and engage them.

And without a hard RADAR lock, anti-air missiles will not fire.  Se they were reduced to firing radar controlled guns, not much different then those used in WWII.  Stealth aircraft are not, have not, and never will be designed to make the aircraft invisible.  The sole purpose is to reduce the RADAR profile to such a small degree that missiles can't lock onto them.

And let me give a quick example.  Suppose a fighter jockey is moving at a fast clip towards a target, ordinance hanging outside of his fighter and raising the profile.  His detection equipment goes haywire, informing him he has multiple SAM launches.  He can simply pop flare and chaff, dump the ordinance, and boogie onto another vector.  His RADAR cross-section has just been reduced dramatically, and now the missile has much more interesting targets to go after.

Simple tactics here, this is not rocket science.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> I'm not saying it's useless but it's not needed in the CAS role.  The A-10 has taken hits from IR missiles but I can't think of a single hit from a guided missile.  As far as range go's the lengthened airframe allows a redesign of the two forward nozzles to a single mid-mounted as in the F-35, and the re-profiled wings get you the increased fuel.  The avionics upgrades are no more difficult than it was to replace my old steam gauges with the Aspen Evolution 2500 Flight Display.  It's just money, and it is way cheaper to do that then buy the F-35 at 165 million a pop.
> 
> Also, to carry as much as they say it can, the F-35 would have to hang the ordnance on external hard points so your stealthyness just disappeared anyway.
> 
> Air superiority is not the job of CAS.  It just isn't.  That being said, the Harriers were more than a match for the Mirages that the Argentines were fielding.  All of which were much faster than the Harrier.  The British didn't lose a single aircraft in air to air combat.



And why do you keep obsessing over the CAS role?

Let me see if you can get this.  We are talking about *Naval Aircraft*.  Not some Air Force CAS aircraft, Naval Fighters.  And even more specific, Marine Corps fighters.

Marine fighters are first and foremost tasked with defending the ships in it's group.  Be it the Carrier in a Carrier Group, or the Amphibious transports if it is an Amphibious group.

*That is their primary mission.*  Period.

Any CAS is a completely secondary mission, if needed and the fighters can be spared for that mission.

And do not even begin to go into the Malvinas conflict, I have studied it for decades, even while it was going on.

The Harriers were largely a non-issue.  Their ranges were so short and speeds so slow that it cost the British dearly.

And as for the Mirages, not only were they operating at extreme range.  And they were operating from Argentina, barely having the fuel to make a single run and return.  So they were hardly in a position to do much.

Primarily what the Harriers shot down were aircraft of a similar age.  The predominant "Mirage" was the Israeli made copy of the Mirage 5, a 1971 era fighter.  Then you had the Mirage III, a mid-1950's era fighter.  And a bunch of A-4s, another 1950's era fighter.

So are you really trying to make your case stick, because the UK was able to shoot down lots of 1950's and 1960's era fighters with another 1960's era fighter?  And yea, the Argentines were not really to concerned in trying to engage in air to air combat.  They were to freaking busy corn holing the Royal Navy at the time.

The entire Malvinas incident was a gross embarrassment for the Royal Navy, loosing 7 ships, including one of their proudest ships, the HMS Sheffield.  And you are obsessing over air to air combat.

The Brits came dangerously close to loosing that war, and you are actually saying we should keep using the fighter that was used in that conflict.

Insanity.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> I'm not saying it's useless but it's not needed in the CAS role.  The A-10 has taken hits from IR missiles but I can't think of a single hit from a guided missile.


You're still in this mindset that CAS is all the marines will use an F-35B for. I believe you're thinking backwards, it is all they used the Harrier for because that is all the Harrier could do.




westwall said:


> As far as range go's the lengthened airframe allows a redesign of the two forward nozzles to a single mid-mounted as in the F-35, and the re-profiled wings get you the increased fuel.  The avionics upgrades are no more difficult than it was to replace my old steam gauges with the Aspen Evolution 2500 Flight Display.  It's just money, and it is way cheaper to do that then buy the F-35 at 165 million a pop.


Harrier was designed small and light for a reason, I'm still skeptical than you can tinker with the wings and lengthen it to almost double the range and still get the same VSTOL plane. You can play with the nozzles all you want you aren't going to make it anything like the F-35 which doesn't use little nozzles on the sides to fly forward it uses a traditional full sized jet exhaust.



westwall said:


> Also, to carry as much as they say it can, the F-35 would have to hang the ordnance on external hard points so your stealthyness just disappeared anyway.


Yes, but when both are using hard points the F-35 can carry far more ordinance than the Harrier.



westwall said:


> Air superiority is not the job of CAS.  It just isn't.  That being said, the Harriers were more than a match for the Mirages that the Argentines were fielding.  All of which were much faster than the Harrier.  The British didn't lose a single aircraft in air to air combat.


No, air superiority is not the job of the Harrier, because it cannot perform the mission against modern fighters. F-35 can do CAS, and air superiority, and SEAD, and strike/bombing sorties into contested airspace. As recently as Libya in 2011 the USN used Harriers in a role that would have been much better suited to a true multi-mission fighter bomber.

Falklands is hardly an endorsement of their capabilities over 30 years later, the shot down one Mirage (the rest were A4s and Daggers), they had the AIM-9L, and they were dogfighting against planes performing bombing runs at the limits of their combat radius. The Brits flew great, the Harriers performed well, but we both know the Harrier is not a reasonable choice for controlling airspace against modern fighters.

Either way I still don't get how you take two planes, one of which is faster and can do far more missions, and declare the other one the superior VSTOL aircraft.


----------



## Mushroom

SteadyMercury said:


> Either way I still don't get how you take two planes, one of which is faster and can do far more missions, and declare the other one the superior VSTOL aircraft.



Simple.

He really does not know what he is talking about.  He is looking at Wikipedia and taking faulty logic to try and figure something out to justify killing the program.  Nothing more and nothing less.

The moment he tried to say that there is no reason the Navy and Marine Corps could not use the F-22, I realized I was dealing with somebody that had absolutely no idea what they were talking about whatsoever.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's useless but it's not needed in the CAS role.  The A-10 has taken hits from IR missiles but I can't think of a single hit from a guided missile.
> 
> 
> 
> You're still in this mindset that CAS is all the marines will use an F-35B for. I believe you're thinking backwards, it is all they used the Harrier for because that is all the Harrier could do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as range go's the lengthened airframe allows a redesign of the two forward nozzles to a single mid-mounted as in the F-35, and the re-profiled wings get you the increased fuel.  The avionics upgrades are no more difficult than it was to replace my old steam gauges with the Aspen Evolution 2500 Flight Display.  It's just money, and it is way cheaper to do that then buy the F-35 at 165 million a pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harrier was designed small and light for a reason, I'm still skeptical than you can tinker with the wings and lengthen it to almost double the range and still get the same VSTOL plane. You can play with the nozzles all you want you aren't going to make it anything like the F-35 which doesn't use little nozzles on the sides to fly forward it uses a traditional full sized jet exhaust.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, to carry as much as they say it can, the F-35 would have to hang the ordnance on external hard points so your stealthyness just disappeared anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but when both are using hard points the F-35 can carry far more ordinance than the Harrier.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air superiority is not the job of CAS.  It just isn't.  That being said, the Harriers were more than a match for the Mirages that the Argentines were fielding.  All of which were much faster than the Harrier.  The British didn't lose a single aircraft in air to air combat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, air superiority is not the job of the Harrier, because it cannot perform the mission against modern fighters. F-35 can do CAS, and air superiority, and SEAD, and strike/bombing sorties into contested airspace. As recently as Libya in 2011 the USN used Harriers in a role that would have been much better suited to a true multi-mission fighter bomber.
> 
> Falklands is hardly an endorsement of their capabilities over 30 years later, the shot down one Mirage (the rest were A4s and Daggers), they had the AIM-9L, and they were dogfighting against planes performing bombing runs at the limits of their combat radius. The Brits flew great, the Harriers performed well, but we both know the Harrier is not a reasonable choice for controlling airspace against modern fighters.
> 
> Either way I still don't get how you take two planes, one of which is faster and can do far more missions, and declare the other one the superior VSTOL aircraft.
Click to expand...





Because speed is bad for CAS.  Having a fast aircraft in that role is counterproductive.  Fast movers are great for air superiority but the idea that a fast mover is going to replace a CAS specialist aircraft is ridiculous.  I haven't flown in an A-10 but I have flown in a two seat SU-25 and that thing is a tank.  It can take hits that would turn an F-35 inside out and I am sure the A-10 is likewise protected. 

I actually had the privilege of speaking with the project director on the F-35 project at Tailhook this year (they had a F-35 simulator there too) and he and I spoke at length about the capabilities and lack thereof of the F-35.  He absolutely agreed that the A-10 is better by far than the F-35 in the CAS role.  He also tacitly admitted that the F-22 is a better air superiority aircraft for the reasons I stated earlier, namely the airframe design limitations based on the multi role requirements.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way I still don't get how you take two planes, one of which is faster and can do far more missions, and declare the other one the superior VSTOL aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> He really does not know what he is talking about.  He is looking at Wikipedia and taking faulty logic to try and figure something out to justify killing the program.  Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> The moment he tried to say that there is no reason the Navy and Marine Corps could not use the F-22, I realized I was dealing with somebody that had absolutely no idea what they were talking about whatsoever.
Click to expand...





Wrong.  I never use wiki but I actually do fly airplanes and know a whole hell of a lot about them having been a pilot for over 40 years now.  I also count MANY fighter pilots as friends and have been able to bend their ears on many occasions.  Most are of the WWII area and they are now getting fragile with age (those who remain with us) but I also knew Robin Olds very well and Bill Driscoll.  I am also friends with quite a few A-6 drivers and other mud moving specialists so have that angle covered as well. 

Here's my goody bag from Tailhook so you can see I'm not full of shit and and, as you can see, they are flogging the F-35 very heavily.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Because speed is bad for CAS.  Having a fast aircraft in that role is counterproductive.


This was true decades ago, modern targeting systems and precision guided weapons have mitigated this. The overwhelming majority of A-10 support in Iraq and Afghanistan has been from guided munitions and a targeting pod, F-35 can do the same without the targeting pod.



westwall said:


> Fast movers are great for air superiority but the idea that a fast mover is going to replace a CAS specialist aircraft is ridiculous.  I haven't flown in an A-10 but I have flown in a two seat SU-25 and that thing is a tank.  It can take hits that would turn an F-35 inside out and I am sure the A-10 is likewise protected.


Not getting hit > hoping to survive getting hit




westwall said:


> He also tacitly admitted that the F-22 is a better air superiority aircraft for the reasons I stated earlier, namely the airframe design limitations based on the multi role requirements.


I wouldn't consider getting someone to admit that an F-22 is a better air superiority aircraft than an F-35 to be a major intel coup, who would say otherwise? The F-22 is designed primarily as an air superiority plane and is by the far the best one in the world, is there someone in the thread claiming the F-35 is comparable in that role?


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Wrong.  I never use wiki but I actually do fly airplanes and know a whole hell of a lot about them having been a pilot for over 40 years now.  I also count MANY fighter pilots as friends and have been able to bend their ears on many occasions.  Most are of the WWII area and they are now getting fragile with age (those who remain with us) but I also knew Robin Olds very well and Bill Driscoll.  I am also friends with quite a few A-6 drivers and other mud moving specialists so have that angle covered as well.
> 
> Here's my goody bag from Tailhook so you can see I'm not full of shit and and, as you can see, they are flogging the F-35 very heavily.


Cool story dude, but what you post is a far better judge than some appeal to authority with who you know and what nifty patches you have. You've thrown out enough ridiculous claims (like Harrier better than F-35) for me to be fairly skeptical of any claims of expertise.


----------



## Manonthestreet

FGlad to see more people wising up. Posted 2 threads on this alrdy. F-35  is garbage. May as well buy YAKs Navy crippled themself when they selected F-18 over SuperCat.  I have no sympathy for stupidity. Cancel it continue F-18s and start over .


----------



## Manonthestreet

AF can buy upgraded F-15s. Give em supercruise


----------



## Manonthestreet

GAO Draft Slams F-35 On ‘Unaffordable’ Costs: $8.8B Over Legacy Fighters
By Colin Clark
on September 22, 2014 at 3:00 PM GAO Draft Slams F-35 On 8216 Unaffordable 8217 Costs 8.8B Over Legacy Fighters Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary


----------



## Synthaholic

Was just reading this yesterday, in magazine form:

The Pentagon s troubled expensive new fighter jet - The Week

Pretty good, and worth a look.  The money quote:

Perverse as it sounds, the program has become too expensive to quit. Congressional lawmakers are also keenly aware that the project supports 133,000 jobs — a number that will grow to 260,000 when full-scale production begins — in 45 states, and are reluctant to sacrifice so many American jobs. Many of America's allies have also made commitments to buying the F-35, and it would damage U.S. prestige to cancel those sales. So the Pentagon is committed to producing 2,400 fighter jets that analysts say could actually weaken America's aviation advantage. "My prediction is the F-35 will be such an embarrassment," says aircraft engineer and defense analyst Pierre Sprey, "that it will be canceled before 500 are built."​

And this is not good:


In 2008, two defense analysts at Rand Corp., a California-based think tank, created a computer program that would test the F-35's fighting ability in a hypothetical war with China. In the war game, American jet fighters based in Japan and Guam are provoked into a dogfight when Chinese missiles destroy the Taiwanese air force. After America's F-22s are themselves destroyed, 16 of the F-35s are left to fight it out with Chinese enemy jets — with devastating results. As soon as the simulated American fighters fire their missiles, they lose their stealth and become visible on radar detectors. Outflown by their Chinese rivals, the F-35s are blown out of the sky. America loses the war, and Taiwan falls to the Chinese. In the technical terminology of the study's two authors, the F-35 was judged "Double Inferior."​


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because speed is bad for CAS.  Having a fast aircraft in that role is counterproductive.
> 
> 
> 
> This was true decades ago, modern targeting systems and precision guided weapons have mitigated this. The overwhelming majority of A-10 support in Iraq and Afghanistan has been from guided munitions and a targeting pod, F-35 can do the same without the targeting pod.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fast movers are great for air superiority but the idea that a fast mover is going to replace a CAS specialist aircraft is ridiculous.  I haven't flown in an A-10 but I have flown in a two seat SU-25 and that thing is a tank.  It can take hits that would turn an F-35 inside out and I am sure the A-10 is likewise protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not getting hit > hoping to survive getting hit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also tacitly admitted that the F-22 is a better air superiority aircraft for the reasons I stated earlier, namely the airframe design limitations based on the multi role requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't consider getting someone to admit that an F-22 is a better air superiority aircraft than an F-35 to be a major intel coup, who would say otherwise? The F-22 is designed primarily as an air superiority plane and is by the far the best one in the world, is there someone in the thread claiming the F-35 is comparable in that role?
Click to expand...





It's every bit as true today as well.  When you go fast you can't spot the target.  It's as simple as that.  Targeting pods help you hit what you see but if you can't see it they are useless.  Bullets and missiles are way faster than your fast mover, and a missile can make a 22G turn and smack you on the ass quite easily.  Try doing that as a pilot.  Fast movers are effective in getting from point A to point B as fast as possible and that does have a tactical advantage, there is no doubt about that.  However once there they have to slow down.  Loiter time is also critical, the longer you can stay around the target area the better to deliver ordnance and munitions. 

And no you did not state that the F-35 was the equivalent of the F-22.  However, a SU 27 can tangle with the F-35, and win.  That's unacceptable when one considers the cost differential between the two aircraft and the fact that the F-35 is supposedly a 5th gen fighter.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  I never use wiki but I actually do fly airplanes and know a whole hell of a lot about them having been a pilot for over 40 years now.  I also count MANY fighter pilots as friends and have been able to bend their ears on many occasions.  Most are of the WWII area and they are now getting fragile with age (those who remain with us) but I also knew Robin Olds very well and Bill Driscoll.  I am also friends with quite a few A-6 drivers and other mud moving specialists so have that angle covered as well.
> 
> Here's my goody bag from Tailhook so you can see I'm not full of shit and and, as you can see, they are flogging the F-35 very heavily.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool story dude, but what you post is a far better judge than some appeal to authority with who you know and what nifty patches you have. You've thrown out enough ridiculous claims (like Harrier better than F-35) for me to be fairly skeptical of any claims of expertise.
Click to expand...






I never claimed the Harrier was better than the F-35.  I said it could be re-engineered to be so.  Best get your facts straight.  I don't make appeals to authority either.  I merely stated that I am a pilot, know a shitload of combat pilots and have actually flown fast movers.  You?


----------



## HenryBHough

It's a Swiss Army Knife among airplanes.

Does lots of things a little bit.

Does nothing well.

Think of it as a Democrat Christmas Tree and it'll feel good to watch.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> GAO Draft Slams F-35 On ‘Unaffordable’ Costs: $8.8B Over Legacy Fighters
> By Colin Clark
> on September 22, 2014 at 3:00 PM GAO Draft Slams F-35 On 8216 Unaffordable 8217 Costs 8.8B Over Legacy Fighters Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary




http://archive.gao.gov/f0902c/105793.pdf


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> It's every bit as true today as well.  When you go fast you can't spot the target.  It's as simple as that.  Targeting pods help you hit what you see but if you can't see it they are useless.


You're just making shit up again, an F-35 can engage in CAS mission at speeds that allow it's targeting to function as intended. Pilots who have flown the F-35 say it gives a better battlefield view and situational awareness than any combat aircraft in existence.

And again, the overwhelming majority of A-10 CAS is using targeting pod and precision guided munitions.



westwall said:


> However, a SU 27 can tangle with the F-35, and win.  That's unacceptable when one considers the cost differential between the two aircraft and the fact that the F-35 is supposedly a 5th gen fighter.


Any plane can shoot down any other plane, an F-35 would be engaging the Flanker before the it even knew the F-35 was there.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> I never claimed the Harrier was better than the F-35.  I said it could be re-engineered to be so.  Best get your facts straight.


That's right, you have some fantasy all we need to do is do some tweaking on a 50 year old subsonic plane and voila it'll be better. Equally hilarious.



westwall said:


> I don't make appeals to authority either.  I merely stated that I am a pilot, know a shitload of combat pilots and have actually flown fast movers.  You?


You don't make appeals to authority... well other than entire posts where you try to win an argument by posting a bio and pictures of patches without making any actual arguments about the subject matter.

You are the very definition of someone who throws out the appeal to authority fallacy, and in fact you just did it again when trying to deny it.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Am unclear why in the missile age we need fighters as opposed to better SAMs and such? Planes are just weapons delivery systems. Why use the middle man at all? Why not just put Sams everywhere you might need them like ringing Moscow. Would anyone in any aircraft wanna fly into Moscow aggressively faced with the gazillion SAMs locking onto them?


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> GAO Draft Slams F-35 On ‘Unaffordable’ Costs: $8.8B Over Legacy Fighters
> By Colin Clark
> on September 22, 2014 at 3:00 PM GAO Draft Slams F-35 On 8216 Unaffordable 8217 Costs 8.8B Over Legacy Fighters Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://archive.gao.gov/f0902c/105793.pdf
Click to expand...






A nice report on the F-16 which states that before purchasing more than 650 of them, there should be a review of the project.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's every bit as true today as well.  When you go fast you can't spot the target.  It's as simple as that.  Targeting pods help you hit what you see but if you can't see it they are useless.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up again, an F-35 can engage in CAS mission at speeds that allow it's targeting to function as intended. Pilots who have flown the F-35 say it gives a better battlefield view and situational awareness than any combat aircraft in existence.
> 
> And again, the overwhelming majority of A-10 CAS is using targeting pod and precision guided munitions.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a SU 27 can tangle with the F-35, and win.  That's unacceptable when one considers the cost differential between the two aircraft and the fact that the F-35 is supposedly a 5th gen fighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any plane can shoot down any other plane, an F-35 would be engaging the Flanker before the it even knew the F-35 was there.
Click to expand...






That is untrue.  Before your precious targeting pod can do its work the target must first be identified.  That means you can't go screaming in at Mach 1.1 pick a random target on the ground and blow it up.  Rules of engagement dictate that and so do ground troops who don't wish to be blown up by friendly fire.  There are exceptions of course if a ground based FO has a laser painting a target then you a


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's every bit as true today as well.  When you go fast you can't spot the target.  It's as simple as that.  Targeting pods help you hit what you see but if you can't see it they are useless.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up again, an F-35 can engage in CAS mission at speeds that allow it's targeting to function as intended. Pilots who have flown the F-35 say it gives a better battlefield view and situational awareness than any combat aircraft in existence.
> 
> And again, the overwhelming majority of A-10 CAS is using targeting pod and precision guided munitions.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a SU 27 can tangle with the F-35, and win.  That's unacceptable when one considers the cost differential between the two aircraft and the fact that the F-35 is supposedly a 5th gen fighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any plane can shoot down any other plane, an F-35 would be engaging the Flanker before the it even knew the F-35 was there.
Click to expand...






Once again you ignore the simple reality that before the target pod can be used, the target must first be identified.  Once the target has been spotted, then it can be targeted.  Hell a B-1 can fly by and drop a JDAM from 35,000 feet so long as there's a Combat Controller on the ground LASING it.  But, if there is no one on the ground capable of doing that for the pilot then he must go down and do it.

Yes A-10's use their targeting pods, doesn't negate the fact that the pilot has to see his damn target and identify it first.

I certainly hope that the F-35 can kill the 27 before it is spotted.  BVR kills are the best after all.   However, ROE dictate a great deal of the tactics allowed these days so BVR kills are getting rarer and rarer.  As far as the situational awareness goes that is due to it's helmet and airframe mounted cameras.  Guess what you can do that with any aircraft.

Below is the view from a lowly F-16.  Hard to get a better cockpit view than that.



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed the Harrier was better than the F-35.  I said it could be re-engineered to be so.  Best get your facts straight.
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you have some fantasy all we need to do is do some tweaking on a 50 year old subsonic plane and voila it'll be better. Equally hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make appeals to authority either.  I merely stated that I am a pilot, know a shitload of combat pilots and have actually flown fast movers.  You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't make appeals to authority... well other than entire posts where you try to win an argument by posting a bio and pictures of patches without making any actual arguments about the subject matter.
> 
> You are the very definition of someone who throws out the appeal to authority fallacy, and in fact you just did it again when trying to deny it.
Click to expand...








You must be making some good money trying to defend this project is all I can say.  Try and repeat ACCURATELY what I said about the Harrier why don't you.  Your last statement is simply a lie.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Delta4Embassy said:


> Am unclear why in the missile age we need fighters as opposed to better SAMs and such? Planes are just weapons delivery systems. Why use the middle man at all? Why not just put Sams everywhere you might need them like ringing Moscow. Would anyone in any aircraft wanna fly into Moscow aggressively faced with the gazillion SAMs locking onto them?


Assuming you mean just for intercepting adversary aircraft, fighters have much wider coverage.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> A nice report on the F-16 which states that before purchasing more than 650 of them, there should be a review of the project.


And which states many concerns about the program, including:
- Turbine blade failures and noncontainment of turbine blades in engine.
- Engine stalls.
- Engine stagnations.
- Main fuel pump malfunctions.
- Ground starting problems.
- Augmentor malfunctions and durability problems.
- susceptibility of the proposed canopy coating to wind and rain erosion.
- ejection seat failures
- structural integrity (cracks in bulkhead)
- radar performance
- flight stability
- environmental control effectiveness
etc.

Point being every new aircraft has issues during development with both performance and program costs, so posting a GAO report critical of F-35 isn't exactly eye popping


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> That is untrue.  Before your precious targeting pod can do its work the target must first be identified.  That means you can't go screaming in at Mach 1.1 pick a random target on the ground and blow it up.  Rules of engagement dictate that and so do ground troops who don't wish to be blown up by friendly fire.  There are exceptions of course if a ground based FO has a laser painting a target then you a


It isn't "my precious targeting pod" and the F-35s EOTS is very similar to the sniper pod used by "your precious A-10" to accomplish most of it's CAS missions.

You sound like you're that type of old guy who doesn't understand newer technology so just thinks anything newfangled ain't as good as the old way, and goddamit Bob Cousy would still dominate in today's NBA.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Once again you ignore the simple reality that before the target pod can be used, the target must first be identified.  Once the target has been spotted, then it can be targeted.  Hell a B-1 can fly by and drop a JDAM from 35,000 feet so long as there's a Combat Controller on the ground LASING it.  But, if there is no one on the ground capable of doing that for the pilot then he must go down and do it.


Wow you don't even know what a JDAM is do you?



westwall said:


> Yes A-10's use their targeting pods, doesn't negate the fact that the pilot has to see his damn target and identify it first.


An F-35 can see the target at magnification (and IR at night) without the pilot needing to turn his head or even have is plane at an angle that allows visual. Modern targeting sensors are built specifically for long range detection, identification and surveillance.



westwall said:


> As far as the situational awareness goes that is due to it's helmet and airframe mounted cameras.  Guess what you can do that with any aircraft.


Yup why didn't anyone thing of that? It is as genius as your plan to give the Harrier bigger wings and a longer fuselage so that is magically becomes a subsonic non-stealthy 50 year old fighter that is better than the F-35.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> You must be making some good money trying to defend this project is all I can say.


Woah we have a winner, Westwall goes to the conspiracy theory playbook.

You got me dude, Lockheed Martin pays me to hang around this forum and defend their program from the brilliance of the extendo-harrier.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Some people can't see past a good sales pitch.  Math doesn't lie.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Here are the specific WestWall posts that are so ridiculous I can't resist repeatedly poking fun at them:



> It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock





> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.



We can address these one at a time, if you'd like. How about we start with your statement it won't be a good naval fighter because it's range is compromised?

Range
F-35C = 1,200 nm
F-18 = 1,090 nm

So you then must also be saying the F-18 isn't a good naval fighter. You know, the one we count on to defend our carrier groups. So what exactly is the range cutoff that makes the F-35 not a good naval fighter?


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice report on the F-16 which states that before purchasing more than 650 of them, there should be a review of the project.
> 
> 
> 
> And which states many concerns about the program, including:
> - Turbine blade failures and noncontainment of turbine blades in engine.
> - Engine stalls.
> - Engine stagnations.
> - Main fuel pump malfunctions.
> - Ground starting problems.
> - Augmentor malfunctions and durability problems.
> - susceptibility of the proposed canopy coating to wind and rain erosion.
> - ejection seat failures
> - structural integrity (cracks in bulkhead)
> - radar performance
> - flight stability
> - environmental control effectiveness
> etc.
> 
> Point being every new aircraft has issues during development with both performance and program costs, so posting a GAO report critical of F-35 isn't exactly eye popping
Click to expand...






No argument.  However some have far more problems then others.  Don't they.  Some have problems that are so bad they get cancelled.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue.  Before your precious targeting pod can do its work the target must first be identified.  That means you can't go screaming in at Mach 1.1 pick a random target on the ground and blow it up.  Rules of engagement dictate that and so do ground troops who don't wish to be blown up by friendly fire.  There are exceptions of course if a ground based FO has a laser painting a target then you a
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't "my precious targeting pod" and the F-35s EOTS is very similar to the sniper pod used by "your precious A-10" to accomplish most of it's CAS missions.
> 
> You sound like you're that type of old guy who doesn't understand newer technology so just thinks anything newfangled ain't as good as the old way, and goddamit Bob Cousy would still dominate in today's NBA.
Click to expand...





I understand new tech quite well.  I also understand its limitations.  Tell me.  How does a targeting pod ID its target?


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you ignore the simple reality that before the target pod can be used, the target must first be identified.  Once the target has been spotted, then it can be targeted.  Hell a B-1 can fly by and drop a JDAM from 35,000 feet so long as there's a Combat Controller on the ground LASING it.  But, if there is no one on the ground capable of doing that for the pilot then he must go down and do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you don't even know what a JDAM is do you?
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes A-10's use their targeting pods, doesn't negate the fact that the pilot has to see his damn target and identify it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An F-35 can see the target at magnification (and IR at night) without the pilot needing to turn his head or even have is plane at an angle that allows visual. Modern targeting sensors are built specifically for long range detection, identification and surveillance.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the situational awareness goes that is due to it's helmet and airframe mounted cameras.  Guess what you can do that with any aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup why didn't anyone thing of that? It is as genius as your plan to give the Harrier bigger wings and a longer fuselage so that is magically becomes a subsonic non-stealthy 50 year old fighter that is better than the F-35.
Click to expand...





You mean these?  For someone who is so knowledgeable I'm shocked you didn't know that JDAMS were also targeted by lasers.



*Boeing to deliver additional Laser JDAM weapons to US Navy*

Boeing to deliver additional Laser JDAM weapons to US Navy - Naval Technology


Untrue.  As he turns his head the image is projected onto the helmet visor and that way he can see "through" the aircraft.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be making some good money trying to defend this project is all I can say.
> 
> 
> 
> Woah we have a winner, Westwall goes to the conspiracy theory playbook.
> 
> You got me dude, Lockheed Martin pays me to hang around this forum and defend their program from the brilliance of the extendo-harrier.
Click to expand...





Pointing out that someone is acting like an ass is not a "conspiracy".  Nice try at deflection though.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Here are the specific WestWall posts that are so ridiculous I can't resist repeatedly poking fun at them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can address these one at a time, if you'd like. How about we start with your statement it won't be a good naval fighter because it's range is compromised?
> 
> Range
> F-35C = 1,200 nm
> F-18 = 1,090 nm
> 
> So you then must also be saying the F-18 isn't a good naval fighter. You know, the one we count on to defend our carrier groups. So what exactly is the range cutoff that makes the F-35 not a good naval fighter?
Click to expand...






Nope.  The F-18 is a fine aircraft.  How many of those can I buy for ONE of your F-35's?  Let's see here.  The absolute top price for an F-18 is 57 million for the newest and bestest with all the bells and whistles.  The PROJECTED cost for the F-35 is now 160 million (and _still going up)_.  Per plane.  Hmmm. 

Seems to me that the three F-18s I can get, can do a near equal job, in more places, than your F-35.  Cost per hour is pretty favorable for the F-18 as well.   Currently the all up cost per hour of the F-18 (including carrier costs on deployment) is 16,000 per hour, 10,000 per hour for just normal operations.  The best guess for the F-35 is 65,000 per hour but that is likely to be on the low side as all cost predictions for the F-35 have proven to be.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> You mean these?  For someone who is so knowledgeable I'm shocked you didn't know that JDAMS were also targeted by lasers.


Hah, nice try. You said JDAM, not LJDAM.

There is a LSDB under development too, that doesn't mean an SDB is laser guided.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Pointing out that someone is acting like an ass is not a "conspiracy".  Nice try at deflection though.


Nope, you implied I was getting paid to defend the F-35 program, typical tin-hatter rhetoric.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Nope.  The F-18 is a fine aircraft.  How many of those can I buy for ONE of your F-35's?  Let's see here.  The absolute top price for an F-18 is 57 million for the newest and bestest with all the bells and whistles.  The PROJECTED cost for the F-35 is now 160 million (and _still going up)_.  Per plane.  Hmmm.


I'm sorry you must have misunderstood the question I brought up, I'll try again.

You said the F-35s won't be a good naval fighter because its range is compromised, but the range of the naval variant F-35B is in fact greater than the F-18.

You are attempting to explain this bizarre logic by going into cost projections.

I'll try again: how does the F-35's range make it a poor naval fighter (your words) when it is on par with F-18, which you say is a good naval fighter?

Focus. Range.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean these?  For someone who is so knowledgeable I'm shocked you didn't know that JDAMS were also targeted by lasers.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah, nice try. You said JDAM, not LJDAM.
> 
> There is a LSDB under development too, that doesn't mean an SDB is laser guided.
Click to expand...





Just give it up.  Your attempt at deflection is duly noted.  JDAM is the accepted shorthand for the weapon and you bloody well know it.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The F-18 is a fine aircraft.  How many of those can I buy for ONE of your F-35's?  Let's see here.  The absolute top price for an F-18 is 57 million for the newest and bestest with all the bells and whistles.  The PROJECTED cost for the F-35 is now 160 million (and _still going up)_.  Per plane.  Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you must have misunderstood the question I brought up, I'll try again.
> 
> You said the F-35s won't be a good naval fighter because its range is compromised, but the range of the naval variant F-35B is in fact greater than the F-18.
> 
> You are attempting to explain this bizarre logic by going into cost projections.
> 
> I'll try again: how does the F-35's range make it a poor naval fighter (your words) when it is on par with F-18, which you say is a good naval fighter?
> 
> Focus. Range.
Click to expand...







If the F-35 can indeed attain the range they project that will be better than an F-18.  No doubt.  Now how can your F-35 be in the three places my F-18's can be.  Focus, cost to operate, cost per unit, mean time between failure, unit operational rate etc.  There are squadrons that have a 90+ operational percentage rate with the F-18.  Based on F22 experience that is simply unattainable with your F-35 that is nowhere near as reliable as the F22 currently is, granted it has had 10 years of development, but it is still not able to maintain a 50% operational rate.

So, based on average figures I'll have 2 aircraft ready to go and you'll have .75 of one.  How does that .75 get off the ground I wonder

I would expect an aircraft that is at minimum three times the cost of mine to at least be twice as capable.  Only yours isn't.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised





westwall said:


> If the F-35 can indeed attain the range they project that will be better than an F-18.  No doubt.


Yup.

Quick! Throw some more "cost projections" smoke grenades!


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Just give it up.  Your attempt at deflection is duly noted.  JDAM is the accepted shorthand for the weapon and you bloody well know it.


Negative. A JDAM is a GPS guided weapon, a LJDAM is a dual-mode laser variant.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Now how can your F-35 be in the three places my F-18's
> ...
> I would expect an aircraft that is at minimum three times the cost of mine to at least be twice as capable.  Only yours isn't.


The F-35 isn't mine, anymore than a sniper pod or EOTS is mine, or a Harrier or F-18 yours.

I think I'm starting to sense why you're acting so irrational here, you have a strange emotional attachment like we're arguing over sports teams.  I don't give a shit about the F-35, I'm just trying to debate some of the ridiculous exaggerations that get thrown about in some of these threads, whereas you clearly think this is some competition where each poster has a fighter they support yours and mine.

That is the only explanation I can think of for hearing you say things like the F-35 doesn't have the required range when you know it does, can't replace the AV-8B, or trying to rationalize it's additional advantages over Harrier such as speed, range, ability to fly CAP, operate in contested airspace as useless to the Marines.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the F-35 can indeed attain the range they project that will be better than an F-18.  No doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> Quick! Throw some more "cost projections" smoke grenades!
Click to expand...





Absolutely.  I as the taxpayer paying for this boondoggle want to know as much as possible about it.  Funny that you don't seem to care.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just give it up.  Your attempt at deflection is duly noted.  JDAM is the accepted shorthand for the weapon and you bloody well know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Negative. A JDAM is a GPS guided weapon, a LJDAM is a dual-mode laser variant.
Click to expand...






And the whole aviation community refers to all of them as JDAMs.  The only people who get persnickety about them are aviation ordnance men and internet experts.  The people dropping them don't give a shit.  They just use them.


----------



## HenryBHough

There's this button on the left side of the stick in the F35.

Press it and the lame duck quacks so loudly that enemies are frightened and run away.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now how can your F-35 be in the three places my F-18's
> ...
> I would expect an aircraft that is at minimum three times the cost of mine to at least be twice as capable.  Only yours isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 isn't mine, anymore than a sniper pod or EOTS is mine, or a Harrier or F-18 yours.
> 
> I think I'm starting to sense why you're acting so irrational here, you have a strange emotional attachment like we're arguing over sports teams.  I don't give a shit about the F-35, I'm just trying to debate some of the ridiculous exaggerations that get thrown about in some of these threads, whereas you clearly think this is some competition where each poster has a fighter they support yours and mine.
> 
> That is the only explanation I can think of for hearing you say things like the F-35 doesn't have the required range when you know it does, can't replace the AV-8B, or trying to rationalize it's additional advantages over Harrier such as speed, range, ability to fly CAP, operate in contested airspace as useless to the Marines.
Click to expand...





You are putting words in my mouth yet again.  My complaint about the F-35 is that for that amount of money I expect an aircraft that is exponentially better than what we already have.  It isn't.  It is a make work project that is being primarily pushed by politicians and not the people who will be expected to use them.

There have been many projects that were cancelled because of massive cost over runs.  Hopefully this one will be too.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Absolutely.  I as the taxpayer paying for this boondoggle want to know as much as possible about it.  Funny that you don't seem to care.


You confuse caring with not being led into a distraction from your nonsensical complaint about the F-35s range limitations.

Steady: why would you say it's range is bad when it is more than an F-18
WestWall: cost! I get 2 fighters per one!

Nice try.

So why again were you saying the F-35s range made it a bad naval fighter? Still haven't heard the rationale behind that one.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> And the whole aviation community refers to all of them as JDAMs.  The only people who get persnickety about them are aviation ordnance men and internet experts.  The people dropping them don't give a shit.  They just use them.


Ahh more appeal to authority, westwall now speaking for the entire aviation community. They give a shit if some poor sap is aiming a laser when they don't have an LJDAM.

It would sound just as silly if you talked about using a laser to designate for an SDB.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> You are putting words in my mouth yet again.  My complaint about the F-35 is that for that amount of money I expect an aircraft that is exponentially better than what we already have.  It isn't.  It is a make work project that is being primarily pushed by politicians and not the people who will be expected to use them.


Back to the cost smoke screens, I'm talking about battlefield performance of the aircraft and you know it.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you claimed the F-35 couldn't even replace the Harrier. You can backtrack all you want and try to spin it into budgetary issues but you know damn well you were caught up in the "go team" spirit you carry you just went over the top irrational over it.

They've used AV-8Bs for bombing missions in Syria and to enforce no-fly zones in Libya, both mission that the F-35B would be far better suited for in addition to the CAS role. Isn't even close.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  I as the taxpayer paying for this boondoggle want to know as much as possible about it.  Funny that you don't seem to care.
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse caring with not being led into a distraction from your nonsensical complaint about the F-35s range limitations.
> 
> Steady: why would you say it's range is bad when it is more than an F-18
> WestWall: cost! I get 2 fighters per one!
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> So why again were you saying the F-35s range made it a bad naval fighter? Still haven't heard the rationale behind that one.
Click to expand...





Talking in circles I see.  Didn't you see my post where I stated if they were able to get what they claim that would be better?  Are you blind?


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the whole aviation community refers to all of them as JDAMs.  The only people who get persnickety about them are aviation ordnance men and internet experts.  The people dropping them don't give a shit.  They just use them.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh more appeal to authority, westwall now speaking for the entire aviation community. They give a shit if some poor sap is aiming a laser when they don't have an LJDAM.
> 
> It would sound just as silly if you talked about using a laser to designate for an SDB.
Click to expand...





Not at all.   A statement of FACT.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth yet again.  My complaint about the F-35 is that for that amount of money I expect an aircraft that is exponentially better than what we already have.  It isn't.  It is a make work project that is being primarily pushed by politicians and not the people who will be expected to use them.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the cost smoke screens, I'm talking about battlefield performance of the aircraft and you know it.
> 
> I'm not putting words in your mouth, you claimed the F-35 couldn't even replace the Harrier. You can backtrack all you want and try to spin it into budgetary issues but you know damn well you were caught up in the "go team" spirit you carry you just went over the top irrational over it.
> 
> They've used AV-8Bs for bombing missions in Syria and to enforce no-fly zones in Libya, both mission that the F-35B would be far better suited for in addition to the CAS role. Isn't even close.
Click to expand...






The battlefield performance of the F-35 is not three times better than the F-18 you referenced so it is a net loss to the aviation community to purchase them.  That is my statement.  Parse it all you wish, but that is my statement.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Talking in circles I see.  Didn't you see my post where I stated if they were able to get what they claim that would be better?  Are you blind?


You made a direct statement that the F-35's range made it a poor naval fighter. That was utterly retarded, and now after failing with the cost distraction you are attempting to add qualifiers.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Not at all.   A statement of FACT.


Yep, and I'm sure you've got little pictures of patches to prove it, you do indeed speak for the entire aviation community and you hang out in fighter pilot bars and saw Top Gun 37 times etc. whatever.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> The battlefield performance of the F-35 is not three times better than the F-18 you referenced so it is a net loss to the aviation community to purchase them.  That is my statement.  Parse it all you wish, but that is my statement.


Fair enough, I was in the thread talking about the performance of the aircraft, not playing math games to make a point about said performance.

You were too until cornered with your idiotic F-35B can't even replace the AV-8B statement.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking in circles I see.  Didn't you see my post where I stated if they were able to get what they claim that would be better?  Are you blind?
> 
> 
> 
> You made a direct statement that the F-35's range made it a poor naval fighter. That was utterly retarded, and now after failing with the cost distraction you are attempting to add qualifiers.
Click to expand...







And I stated that if it were true, that would make it better.  Can't you read?


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The battlefield performance of the F-35 is not three times better than the F-18 you referenced so it is a net loss to the aviation community to purchase them.  That is my statement.  Parse it all you wish, but that is my statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, I was in the thread talking about the performance of the aircraft, not playing math games to make a point about said performance.
> 
> You were too until cornered with your idiotic F-35B can't even replace the AV-8B statement.
Click to expand...






I stated that an updated and improved Harrier would cost far less and do nearly as good a job.  That is what I said.  My argument has ALWAYS been that the F-35 is not worth purchasing because it's performance doesn't match its cost.  Period.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.   A statement of FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and I'm sure you've got little pictures of patches to prove it, you do indeed speak for the entire aviation community and you hang out in fighter pilot bars and saw Top Gun 37 times etc. whatever.
Click to expand...






You're too funny.  You make blanket statements and then try and attack me because I happen to know people in the business.  I didn't show any "patches" silly man.  I posted pictures of the goodie BAG that all participants get at Tailhook to show that yes indeed I had been there.  Many posters make statements then can't back them up.  I can.  That's all. 

It is sad that you feel the need to belittle people who disagree with you.


----------



## HenryBHough

F35.  The airplane (well, alleged airplane) that was the laughingstock at the world's biggest air show when it failed to appear.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> I stated that an updated and improved Harrier would cost far less and do nearly as good a job.  That is what I said.  My argument has ALWAYS been that the F-35 is not worth purchasing because it's performance doesn't match its cost.  Period.



The quote function is inconvenient for you:



westwall said:


> As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.  It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised *and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.*



You fail... again.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> I didn't show any "patches" silly man.  I posted pictures of the goodie BAG that all participants get at Tailhook


Okay that is even funnier. How many pictures did you take of your little goodie bag?



westwall said:


> It is sad that you feel the need to belittle people who disagree with you.


Look back thru your own posts too there Mr. Self-Righteous.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> And I stated that if it were true, that would make it better.  Can't you read?


Yep I saw you say this pages later after called out on your initial bullshit.

But hey I get it and I'm with you... if I knew the F-35C's specs showed a greater range than our current naval fighter my initial reaction would be to type "*It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised*" yep makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Indofred

SteadyMercury said:


> That's right, you have some fantasy all we need to do is do some tweaking on a 50 year old subsonic plane and voila it'll be better. Equally hilarious.



The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
Cash Vs. speed?


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that an updated and improved Harrier would cost far less and do nearly as good a job.  That is what I said.  My argument has ALWAYS been that the F-35 is not worth purchasing because it's performance doesn't match its cost.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function is inconvenient for you:
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.  It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised *and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail... again.
Click to expand...







No, I don't.  Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22.  Thus it fails as an interceptor.  It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time.  Fail.  It is superior to the Harrier, but at 35 million per, the Harrier is four times cheaper to purchase.  Plus, if you upgrade the Harrier and redesign the airframe for the new engines that are now available, it will still not be as good as the F-35 but it would still be at least three times cheaper to procure thus once again the F-35 is forced to do the work of three aircraft which it can't.  Thus it fails again.

You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier.  Do you get it yet?


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> No, I don't.  Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22.  Thus it fails as an interceptor.


This exactly the type of irrational logic I've come to expect from you. Since the F-35, a multirole fighter/bomber, isn't as good as the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world, it fails as an interceptor. Taking your puddle deep thinking further, every other fighter in the world also fails as an interceptor too.



> It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time.


Really? 

Okay why don't you tell me the loiter time of an A-10 (range 800 miles) flying low with hardpoint mounted weapons versus an F-35 (range 1,200 miles) flying higher where air is thinner and 8 SDB IIs carried internally? Including the fuel used to get to the battlefield.

How much longer is the A-10s loiter time than the F-35s then?



> You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier.  Do you get it yet?


Nope, I'm just not interested in your constant attempts to weasel out of getting called on making bullshit claims by suddenly getting interested in cost. I'm here to discuss the capabilities of the aircraft.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Indofred said:


> The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
> Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
> Cash Vs. speed?


I don't think F-35 is necessarily better than the A-10 at CAS, just different. There are things the A-10 will do better in a close air support role, and things the F-35 will do better.


----------



## Mad Scientist

I think you guys are missing the point.

Whether the F-35 performance is merely lacking or complete fail doesn't matter: Just think of the jobs it'll provide.


----------



## Manonthestreet

*No edge for F-35 on most missions: report* No edge for F-35 on most missions report - Yahoo News


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't.  Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22.  Thus it fails as an interceptor.
> 
> 
> 
> This exactly the type of irrational logic I've come to expect from you. Since the F-35, a multirole fighter/bomber, isn't as good as the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world, it fails as an interceptor. Taking your puddle deep thinking further, every other fighter in the world also fails as an interceptor too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> Okay why don't you tell me the loiter time of an A-10 (range 800 miles) flying low with hardpoint mounted weapons versus an F-35 (range 1,200 miles) flying higher where air is thinner and 8 SDB IIs carried internally? Including the fuel used to get to the battlefield.
> 
> How much longer is the A-10s loiter time than the F-35s then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier.  Do you get it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, I'm just not interested in your constant attempts to weasel out of getting called on making bullshit claims by suddenly getting interested in cost. I'm here to discuss the capabilities of the aircraft.
Click to expand...







Sorry for the delay in answering I just noticed you had replied!  Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base.  Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.  There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time.  None, nada, zilch, zero.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
> Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
> Cash Vs. speed?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think F-35 is necessarily better than the A-10 at CAS, just different. There are things the A-10 will do better in a close air support role, and things the F-35 will do better.
Click to expand...









The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene.  There's no question it will get there faster.  Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base.  Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.


First it isn't "my" F-35, you are clearly approaching this like someone rooting for a college football team or boxer, which probably explains how willing you are to sling such laughable bullshit. 



westwall said:


> There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time.  None, nada, zilch, zero.


And hence your bullshit... you are admitting you have no idea what the loiter time is for the F-35, after having just claimed that loiter range was inferior to the A-10.

This comes right on the heels of you claiming it doesn't have the range to be a naval fighter, despite F-35C having superior range to the F-18. Then suddenly you're questioning whether the stated range of F-35C is true.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene.  There's no question it will get there faster.  Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.


A-10 does some things better, F-35 does other things better.

You can't see anything better about the F-35 because you rah rah fanboy go team.


----------



## Indofred

westwall said:


> Sorry for the delay in answering I just noticed you had replied!  Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base.  Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.



Fast is nice but, when you attack a ground target, you need to blast it to hell.
That in mind, if the F35 gets there, but only does half the job, what use is it?

As for loiter time, the F35 probably wins as it seems to have a range of a little less twice that of the A10, but how is its survivability.
An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?


----------



## SteadyMercury

Indofred said:


> An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
> The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
> What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?


F-35 doesn't attack a ground target from low level. 

It uses sensors to identify/track/engage targets from an altitude outside the range of guns or MANPADS. It has a Distributed Aperture System to see in every direction at once and a built-in EOTS for targeting. There are advantages to flying low using your eyes, and advantages to flying higher with superior sensors seeing the whole battle field.

Not getting hit at all is better than being able to survive getting hit.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base.  Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.
> 
> 
> 
> First it isn't "my" F-35, you are clearly approaching this like someone rooting for a college football team or boxer, which probably explains how willing you are to sling such laughable bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time.  None, nada, zilch, zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And hence your bullshit... you are admitting you have no idea what the loiter time is for the F-35, after having just claimed that loiter range was inferior to the A-10.
> 
> This comes right on the heels of you claiming it doesn't have the range to be a naval fighter, despite F-35C having superior range to the F-18. Then suddenly you're questioning whether the stated range of F-35C is true.
Click to expand...






I don't recall claiming the range on the F-35 was poor....  The supercruise is a very nice capability but it can't do CAS half as good as a A-10.  The A-10 carries 5 times as much ordnance so your claim that it can do some things better than the A-10 are not born out by fact.  What I care about is efficiency.  If the aircraft isn't efficient then it had better be the best in it's class.  And by a lot.  The F-35 isn't the best in any category.  Other than cost.  It's faaaaar superior in that class!


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene.  There's no question it will get there faster.  Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.
> 
> 
> 
> A-10 does some things better, F-35 does other things better.
> 
> You can't see anything better about the F-35 because you rah rah fanboy go team.
Click to expand...






Tell us what it does better.  I am curious.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
> The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
> What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 doesn't attack a ground target from low level.
> 
> It uses sensors to identify/track/engage targets from an altitude outside the range of guns or MANPADS. It has a Distributed Aperture System to see in every direction at once and a built-in EOTS for targeting. There are advantages to flying low using your eyes, and advantages to flying higher with superior sensors seeing the whole battle field.
> 
> Not getting hit at all is better than being able to survive getting hit.
Click to expand...










Spotting the target is kind of important too.  The F-15 Strike Eagle is doing the same job as the F-35.  It's problem is it is high and fast so it's capability in the CAS role is nowhere near as good as the A-10.  That's a fact that the Army realizes.  The Army has threatened the Air Force that if they retire the A-10 the Army will take it over.  Maybe all those generals know more about the issue than you do.


----------



## HenryBHough

All this when a stock of strategic size nukes could clean up so much more and so much more quickly!


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> I don't recall claiming the range on the F-35 was poor....



You stated it won't be a good naval fighter because of the range, which makes zero sense since F-35C has greater range than F-18.

Here, let me help you remember:


westwall said:


> It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised



Similar to your utterly bizarre sequence of claiming A-10 has better loiter time followed by noting you have no idea what the loiter time of F-35 is.  These aren't the posts of someone approaching something objectively, it is the post of someone with a conclusion they are trying to chase and are willing to suspend truth and logic to catch it.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> The supercruise is a very nice capability but it can't do CAS half as good as a A-10.  The A-10 carries 5 times as much ordnance so your claim that it can do some things better than the A-10 are not born out by fact.


Ummm no, F-35 max weapons payload is 15,000 lbs to 18,000 lbs depending on the variant, very similar to the A-10.

Point made earlier is it will be able to carry eight SDB-2s while flying clean, thus giving it the capability to engage eight targets with pinpoint accuracy without sacrificing the performance and stealth issues of external hardware on pylons. This would be an actual combat loadout, not some silly max ordinance number that no plane flies with. I suggest you stop trying to look at this as an oversimplistic weight contest (yay B-52 is better at CAS it carries more) and examine what an actual A-10 carries flying sorties carries.

Found some typical loadouts at the link below, clearly the A-10 doesn't carry 5x as much ordinance it usually has four 500 lb bombs (guided and unguided), a rocket pod and/or maverick, and a targeting pod.

Latest known Operation Enduring Freedom A-10 combat loadouts Warthog News

Photo proofs of: 82-0659 - 103rd FS, 111th FW (Pennsylvania ANG), Willow Grove ARS, Pennsylvania (PA)
; 78-0655 - 303rd FS, 442nd FW (AFRC), Whiteman AFB, Missouri (KC):

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 5: pylon not installed
Station 6: Mk. 82 LDGP?
Station 7: pylon not installed
Station 8: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 9: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 10: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 11: empty pylon

*23rd Fighter Group, 23rd Wing (ACC), Moody AFB, Georgia (tailcode FT)*

(Combat-deployed to Bagram AB, Afghanistan, September 2008 - August 2009)

Note: In early March 2009, the 75th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was replaced by the 74th EFS, but only by personnel.

Photo proof of 79-0179:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: empty pylon
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proofs of 80-0252, 78-0679:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: SUU-25 Flare dispenser
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of ...:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of 80-0144:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: Flare Dispenser
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: empty pylon
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of 79-0135:

Station 1:
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3:
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
Station 5:
Station 6:
Station 7:
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
Station 9:
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11:

*354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, 355th Fighter Wing (ACC), Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona (tailcode DM)*

(Combat-deployed to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, July 2009 - January 2010)

Photo proofs of 80-0155, 78-0684:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: Sniper XR targeting pod
Station 3: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM
Station 5: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM
Station 9: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 10: empty pylon
Station 11: empty pylon


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Tell us what it does better.  I am curious.


Battlefield awareness, operating in contested airspace, getting to the battlefield faster, taking off from ships.

Here is an interesting scenario for you: 
Lucrative targets the U.S. Air Force in the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations - AIR FORCE HISTORICAL STUDIES OFFICE BOLLING AFB DC Perry D Jamieson - Google Books

What happened when A-10s were used in areas defended by SAMs? They started getting shot down and were immediately restricted in use to higher altitudes and kept completely out of the battle against the better defended Repub guards. An A-10 flying at higher altitude is just a bomb truck and has no CAS advantages over F-35, while an A-10 that cannot even be deployed because of SAM presence is clearly at a disadvantge to an F-35.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Spotting the target is kind of important too.


Good point, F-35 is built to spot targets, between the sensors the helmet and the computers it has the best battlefield awareness of any fighter ever built.



westwall said:


> The Army has threatened the Air Force that if they retire the A-10 the Army will take it over.  Maybe all those generals know more about the issue than you do.


Hah hah and back to the appeal-to-authority argument. So if I find experts who believe the F-35 is a wiser purchase does that mean I've proven my point since those generals know more about the issue than you do?

It is about more than CAS, and the decision to go with multirole versus specialized aircraft is almost a completely different thread. My contention is the F-35 will be able to handle CAS missions while also having the additional capabilities of air superiority fighter, strike fighter, etc. all sorts of things the A-10 cannot do including CAS in contested airspace. It is a highly political argument and it gets people beating their chests and arguing illogically just to support their favorite plane, which is hilarious to watch.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall claiming the range on the F-35 was poor....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stated it won't be a good naval fighter because of the range, which makes zero sense since F-35C has greater range than F-18.
> 
> Here, let me help you remember:
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Similar to your utterly bizarre sequence of claiming A-10 has better loiter time followed by noting you have no idea what the loiter time of F-35 is.  These aren't the posts of someone approaching something objectively, it is the post of someone with a conclusion they are trying to chase and are willing to suspend truth and logic to catch it.
Click to expand...







Well I was clearly wrong as regards the range.  I don't remember writing it, nor do I know why I would think that, but it is clearly wrong.  The loiter time of the A-10 is better due to the amount of ordnance that it can carry.  You can trade ordnance for fuel if you need to and the A-10 has loads more payload than the F-35.  Of that there is NO doubt.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supercruise is a very nice capability but it can't do CAS half as good as a A-10.  The A-10 carries 5 times as much ordnance so your claim that it can do some things better than the A-10 are not born out by fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm no, F-35 max weapons payload is 15,000 lbs to 18,000 lbs depending on the variant, very similar to the A-10.
> 
> Point made earlier is it will be able to carry eight SDB-2s while flying clean, thus giving it the capability to engage eight targets with pinpoint accuracy without sacrificing the performance and stealth issues of external hardware on pylons. This would be an actual combat loadout, not some silly max ordinance number that no plane flies with. I suggest you stop trying to look at this as an oversimplistic weight contest (yay B-52 is better at CAS it carries more) and examine what an actual A-10 carries flying sorties carries.
> 
> Found some typical loadouts at the link below, clearly the A-10 doesn't carry 5x as much ordinance it usually has four 500 lb bombs (guided and unguided), a rocket pod and/or maverick, and a targeting pod.
> 
> Latest known Operation Enduring Freedom A-10 combat loadouts Warthog News
> 
> Photo proofs of: 82-0659 - 103rd FS, 111th FW (Pennsylvania ANG), Willow Grove ARS, Pennsylvania (PA)
> ; 78-0655 - 303rd FS, 442nd FW (AFRC), Whiteman AFB, Missouri (KC):
> 
> Station 1: empty pylon
> Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 3: empty pylon
> Station 4: GBU-12 Paveway II
> Station 5: pylon not installed
> Station 6: Mk. 82 LDGP?
> Station 7: pylon not installed
> Station 8: GBU-12 Paveway II
> Station 9: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
> Station 10: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 11: empty pylon
> 
> *23rd Fighter Group, 23rd Wing (ACC), Moody AFB, Georgia (tailcode FT)*
> 
> (Combat-deployed to Bagram AB, Afghanistan, September 2008 - August 2009)
> 
> Note: In early March 2009, the 75th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was replaced by the 74th EFS, but only by personnel.
> 
> Photo proof of 79-0179:
> 
> Station 1: empty pylon
> Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 3: empty pylon
> Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
> Station 6: empty pylon
> Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
> Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 9: empty pylon
> Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
> Station 11: empty pylon
> 
> Photo proofs of 80-0252, 78-0679:
> 
> Station 1: empty pylon
> Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 3: SUU-25 Flare dispenser
> Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
> Station 6: empty pylon
> Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
> Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
> Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
> Station 11: empty pylon
> 
> Photo proof of ...:
> 
> Station 1: empty pylon
> Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 3: empty pylon
> Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
> Station 6: empty pylon
> Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
> Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
> Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
> Station 11: empty pylon
> 
> Photo proof of 80-0144:
> 
> Station 1: empty pylon
> Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 3: Flare Dispenser
> Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 5: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
> Station 6: empty pylon
> Station 7: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
> Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
> Station 9: empty pylon
> Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
> Station 11: empty pylon
> 
> Photo proof of 79-0135:
> 
> Station 1:
> Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 3:
> Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
> Station 5:
> Station 6:
> Station 7:
> Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
> Station 9:
> Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
> Station 11:
> 
> *354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, 355th Fighter Wing (ACC), Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona (tailcode DM)*
> 
> (Combat-deployed to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, July 2009 - January 2010)
> 
> Photo proofs of 80-0155, 78-0684:
> 
> Station 1: empty pylon
> Station 2: Sniper XR targeting pod
> Station 3: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
> Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM
> Station 5: GBU-12 Paveway II
> Station 6: empty pylon
> Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB
> Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM
> Station 9: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
> Station 10: empty pylon
> Station 11: empty pylon
Click to expand...







Ummmm, yeah.  Ok.  But then it can't remain stealthy.  Hanging anything on it compromises its range and renders it back to a normal aircraft.  The second you hang a single external weapon on it, you have compromised its stealthiness which is what you claimed you wanted to keep.  So, which is it?  A highly expensive conventional weapons delivery platform or a highly expensive stealth aircraft?

Can't have both on this planet.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spotting the target is kind of important too.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, F-35 is built to spot targets, between the sensors the helmet and the computers it has the best battlefield awareness of any fighter ever built.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Army has threatened the Air Force that if they retire the A-10 the Army will take it over.  Maybe all those generals know more about the issue than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hah hah and back to the appeal-to-authority argument. So if I find experts who believe the F-35 is a wiser purchase does that mean I've proven my point since those generals know more about the issue than you do?
> 
> It is about more than CAS, and the decision to go with multirole versus specialized aircraft is almost a completely different thread. My contention is the F-35 will be able to handle CAS missions while also having the additional capabilities of air superiority fighter, strike fighter, etc. all sorts of things the A-10 cannot do including CAS in contested airspace. It is a highly political argument and it gets people beating their chests and arguing illogically just to support their favorite plane, which is hilarious to watch.
Click to expand...







I will certainly appeal to those who are fighting the wars.  I'm not.  They are.  The history of military technology is littered with weapons systems that no one wanted but those who were building them.  It is also littered with dead people forced to use those systems which were failures.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us what it does better.  I am curious.
> 
> 
> 
> Battlefield awareness, operating in contested airspace, getting to the battlefield faster, taking off from ships.
> 
> Here is an interesting scenario for you:
> Lucrative targets the U.S. Air Force in the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations - AIR FORCE HISTORICAL STUDIES OFFICE BOLLING AFB DC Perry D Jamieson - Google Books
> 
> What happened when A-10s were used in areas defended by SAMs? They started getting shot down and were immediately restricted in use to higher altitudes and kept completely out of the battle against the better defended Repub guards. An A-10 flying at higher altitude is just a bomb truck and has no CAS advantages over F-35, while an A-10 that cannot even be deployed because of SAM presence is clearly at a disadvantge to an F-35.
Click to expand...









Hanging ordnance off them loses your contested airspace advantage.  Battlefield awareness is dependent on people on the ground.  In other words the A-10 can benefit from the same weapons suite.  The A-10 can take off from ships as well.  The one true advantage the F-35 has is speed.  I have already granted you that.

As far as the war losses, they sent them in unescorted.  No ECM aircraft and at that stage they didn't even have the big eye in the sky keeping track of the Iraq ground movements so the A-10's were going in on recon/attack sorties so were as vulnerable as you can get.  And they still only lost two of them.  The others were returned to service.


"OTTAWA — It seems U.S. fighter pilots have lost that loving feeling for their new F-35 stealth jets.
At least that’s the impression given in a scathing Pentagon report leaked this week that identifies a huge number of problems facing the U.S. military’s F-35 fleet — including fears that it can easily be shot down.
From radars that don’t work, to blurry vision from the aircraft’s sophisticated helmet, to an inability to fly through clouds, the report, which includes pilot comments, paints a picture of a jet nowhere near ready for real-life operations.
F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin is refusing to comment, but the report’s revelations will likely give Canadian military planners pause as they continue assessing options for replacing Canada’s aging CF-18s."


F-35 design problems make night flying impossible increase risk of being shot down U.S. pilots warn National Post


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Well I was clearly wrong as regards the range.


I know this.



westwall said:


> The loiter time of the A-10 is better due to the amount of ordnance that it can carry.  You can trade ordnance for fuel if you need to and the A-10 has loads more payload than the F-35.  Of that there is NO doubt.


Given that you recently posted you can find no information on F-35 loiter time, you are again talking out of your ass, just like with F-35 range.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Ummmm, yeah.  Ok.  But then it can't remain stealthy.


It can remain stealthy with eight precision guided air to ground weapons internally.

I posted plenty of examples of actual weapon loads carried by the A-10, clearly your "omigosh 5x more payload" battle cry is misplaced. Four 500 lb bombs, a rocket pod and a maverick.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> I will certainly appeal to those who are fighting the wars.  I'm not.  They are.  The history of military technology is littered with weapons systems that no one wanted but those who were building them.  It is also littered with dead people forced to use those systems which were failures.


You missed the point by a mile... an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because both sides can find random "experts" who would support their case.

Say I bring up General Welsh, one of the strongest advocates of the F35 and one who has stated the A-10 won't be survivable in future battlefields. What is his background? A-10 pilot.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Hanging ordnance off them loses your contested airspace advantage.


1. It doesn't need to have external ordinance to pack a serious air to ground punch, that has been explained about a half dozen times now so I'll just bind a macro key to type it out from now and save time.

2. Even with external ordinance it doesn't lose the contested airspace advantage because the A-10 is slow. That is like claiming because an F-15E isn't stealthy it doesn't have an advantage in contested airspace over A-10s, when clearly history has shown our military has been forced to not use A-10s and instead use fast movers because of SAM threat.




westwall said:


> Battlefield awareness is dependent on people on the ground.  In other words the A-10 can benefit from the same weapons suite.  The A-10 can take off from ships as well.  The one true advantage the F-35 has is speed.  I have already granted you that.


Battlefield awareness is also about aircraft sensors, radar, and networking, all of which the F-35 is much better equipped than an A-10.

F-35Bs and F-35Cs can both operate from navy ships off the coast to support ground actions, the A-10 cannot.



westwall said:


> And they still only lost two of them.


Two of them lost to eight SAMs launched. Unacceptable, which is why they quickly stopped using them in that area and restricted their altitude.


----------



## mamooth

In the short Russia-Georgia war, tiny Georgia shot down four Russian SU-25's, which is the Russian version of the A-10. The SU-25 and A-10 are both seen by any modern air defense system as big slow targets, and are kind of useless unless you have complete air supremacy.

As far as those brushfire wars go, it's not "A-10 or F-35", it's "A-10 or a mix of drones and F-35s". Remember the drones? Very slow, insanely long loiter times, very cheap.


----------



## SteadyMercury

I think sentiment drives the rabid A-10 types, that is the only way I can explain their willingness to suspend logic and manufacture information about aircraft capabilities, and pretend the nature of CAS hasn't evolved past F-4U corsairs screaming over tree tops with pilots strafing whatever catches their eye.

The modifications to the A-10C upgrade path do what exactly? Support targeting/launching of PGMs to make the A-10 more effective on the modern battlefield, because the advances in modern ordinance have made medium altitude CAS using precision guided weapons the best path.


----------



## SteadyMercury

mamooth said:


> The SU-25 and A-10 are both seen by any modern air defense system as big slow targets, and are kind of useless unless you have complete air supremacy.


I read that as recently as Libya they restricted where A-10s could operate based on rumors of SA-18s on the ground.

Keeping your aircraft out of the battle because you fear it'll get blown out of the sky is never a win.


----------



## Manonthestreet

* F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019'.  F-35 stealth jet will not be able to fire its guns until 2019 - Telegraph*


----------



## SteadyMercury

Yet another attack piece that has no real source, just a bunch of references to "Air Force official" and something the official sources deny is true. You are the perfect audience for them.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Avalanche of evidence this plane is garbage but like the warmists you cling to your faith. Several hundred billion down the toilet without even one fully functional plane.


----------



## HenryBHough

Loved the European Debut at this summer's Farnborough Air Show where it was hoped at least 90 orders would be placed by NATO members.

Here's a photo:



 
Nope.

NOT that stealthy.

Just a no-show.

No orders, either.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Avalanche of evidence this plane is garbage but like the warmists you cling to your faith. Several hundred billion down the toilet without even one fully functional plane.


Interesting when "avalanche of evidence" of this gun thing is anonymous sources in an article in a tabloid that is quoting another article from the Daily Beast.

It has nothing to do with being a "warmist" (whatever that means) it has to do with being skeptical of people who have a conclusion they are chasing hard enough that they say illogical things and only believe that supports their agenda.

Here is another quote from the source:


> and while that gun-pod version for the Navy and Marines carries slightly more ammo, with 220 rounds, some in the military are complaining that it’s not enough. “So, about good for one tactical burst,” the first Air Force official said. “


Hah hah what kind of made up shit is that? A single 220 round burst?

F-35 has more ammo than most other modern fighters including Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter, MIG-29, Su-27 etc. yet somehow this has now become not enough ammo?

Just retards with agendas not making any sense.

More from your source:


> The lack of a cannon is a particular problem, as the F-35 is being counted on to help out infantrymen under fire. (This is known as close air support, or CAS, in military jargon.) The F-35 will lack the ability to mark a target or attack enemy forces in “danger close” situations, said one highly experienced Air Force fighter pilot.
> 
> “Lack of forward firing ordnance in a CAS supporting aircraft is a major handicap,” he added. “CAS fights are more fluid than air interdiction, friendlies and targets move... Oftentimes quickly. The ability to mark the target with rockets and attack the same target 10 seconds later is crucial.”
> 
> Typically, aircraft will work in pairs where the flight lead will make an initial pass to mark a target with rockets. A second aircraft will then attack with its guns. Incidentally, the F-35 won’t be armed with rockets, either, sources told The Daily Beast.


Lol so CAS is gunfire and marking targets with rockets? Do you really believe that is how modern CAS works? Two planes with first marking targets with rockets before second sweeps in to strafe?


----------



## Discombobulated

HenryBHough said:


> Loved the European Debut at this summer's Farnborough Air Show where it was hoped at least 90 orders would be placed by NATO members.
> 
> Here's a photo:
> 
> View attachment 35557
> Nope.
> 
> NOT that stealthy.
> 
> Just a no-show.
> 
> No orders, either.



Wrong, deliveries have been under way for a couple of years, the F-35 is operational.

United Kingdom F-35 F-35 Lightning II


----------



## HenryBHough

Discombobulated said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loved the European Debut at this summer's Farnborough Air Show where it was hoped at least 90 orders would be placed by NATO members.
> 
> Here's a photo:
> 
> View attachment 35557
> Nope.
> 
> NOT that stealthy.
> 
> Just a no-show.
> 
> No orders, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, deliveries have been under way for a couple of years, the F-35 is operational.
> 
> United Kingdom F-35 F-35 Lightning II
Click to expand...


Yup.

Operational when they're not grounded because of he discovery of yet another fatal flaw.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Wow you don't understand what a fatal flaw is do you? 

Hint = When a defect is found on early production aircraft that is fixed within a few weeks, it isn't a fatal flaw.


----------



## HenryBHough

The empty sky at Farnborough was fantastic.  The empty sales suite at Lockheed?  Not so much.


----------



## SteadyMercury

I can't believe a someone really thinks it showing up at that air show is what intl sales of the fighter hinges on, as if some general from Cameroon is going to say shit I was thinking about buying a dozen of these 120 million dollar planes but since I couldn't see it at the air show the deal is off.

Pretty much what I mentioned earlier about the bizarre doggedly irrational logic of people who've made up their minds this plane is no good.

Exactly which country do you believe changed their mind about the plane at this air show?


----------



## HenryBHough

No-show at the world's largest sales venue for aircraft is proof the poor overtsuffed bird is NOT ready for prime time.

But keep on believing.

Meanwhile the French and "European" military companies smile along with you though for different reason.


----------



## Discombobulated

HenryBHough said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loved the European Debut at this summer's Farnborough Air Show where it was hoped at least 90 orders would be placed by NATO members.
> 
> Here's a photo:
> 
> View attachment 35557
> Nope.
> 
> NOT that stealthy.
> 
> Just a no-show.
> 
> No orders, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, deliveries have been under way for a couple of years, the F-35 is operational.
> 
> United Kingdom F-35 F-35 Lightning II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> Operational when they're not grounded because of he discovery of yet another fatal flaw.
Click to expand...


Your information is out of date.


----------



## HenryBHough

You don't like December sales figures?


----------



## SteadyMercury

HenryBHough said:


> No-show at the world's largest sales venue for aircraft is proof the poor overtsuffed bird is NOT ready for prime time.


Yep it is not ready, I think IOC for B variant is end of 2015.

So again, you implied sales suffered because of this and must have missed my question. Which country decided not to buy the F-35 because of this air show?


----------



## HenryBHough

Nations do not announce they're NOT buying something.  Manufacturers do not announce non-orders. But they also do not report them even though thty were hoping and expecting.

But your faith is charming and I'm sure America will continue going down this sad path.


----------



## SteadyMercury

HenryBHough said:


> Nations do not announce they're NOT buying something.  Manufacturers do not announce non-orders. But they also do not report them even though thty were hoping and expecting.


So in other words despite all your harping on this air show and the alleged empty sales suite you really have no facts to go on at all, just banging your gums. This goes back to what I said about rabid opponents of the F-35 program, you fit right in.



HenryBHough said:


> But your faith is charming and I'm sure America will continue going down this sad path.


Faith in what? I've not professed faith in anything, I've just got a healthy dose of skepticism for people like you who are more interested in there agenda than facts.

If you want to talk about F-35 combat capabilities fine, want to discuss the price, the delays in development, what countries have publicly committed to it, etc. let's do it, but it appears you're content to make sweeping criticisms that when pushed to present actual facts you've got nothing more than saying who knows since it isn't publicly announced.

Typical.


----------



## HenryBHough

Keep on believing.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Believing what? You can't even muster the IQ to generate any sort of response directed at anything I've actually said.

Here I'll save you the trouble of firing all eight synapses in that sand flea brain of yours: hey Steady keep believing!


----------



## Manonthestreet

Discombobulated said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loved the European Debut at this summer's Farnborough Air Show where it was hoped at least 90 orders would be placed by NATO members.
> 
> Here's a photo:
> 
> View attachment 35557
> Nope.
> 
> NOT that stealthy.
> 
> Just a no-show.
> 
> No orders, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, deliveries have been under way for a couple of years, the F-35 is operational.
> 
> United Kingdom F-35 F-35 Lightning II
Click to expand...

F-35 is not operational...only missions being flown are testing


----------



## SteadyMercury

They've slipped the IOC at least three times.

Last I heard the earliest ICO is for the Marines B-model in late 2015 because with the 2B software will have everything their AV-8Bs could do for basic interdiction with JDAMs and Paveways plus will have the AMRAAMs.

Air Force and Navy are waiting because they need more than a faster harrier, I think 2016 for USAF and 2018 for USN but I'm not sure. Whatever they are saying now of course doesn't matter it'll probably slip again for AF and Navy, while the Marines being Marines will say fuck it and fly it anyway.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Not stealthy, no supercruise ergo not fifth generation fighter.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Heh heh and that is more of what I'm talking about, the anti-F35 people will happily regurgitate nonsensical talking points. Both "stealthy" and "supercruise" have no set quantifiable definition, so it is impossible to support your claim.

F-35 is by anyone's definition a low-observable aircraft, the only combat aircraft with a smaller radar signature are F-22 and B-2. The low radar cross section combined with infrared reduction make it a stealth aircraft in my opinion. The commander of Air Combat Command recently stated the F-35s radar signature was in fact smaller than the F-22, something I don't believe but it definitely shits all over your silly not stealthy claim.

Regarding supercruise the F-35 can maintain mach 1.2 for 150 miles without afterburners. If you accept the definition of supercruise as sustained supersonic flight with meaningful cargo then it has supercruise. Again, matter for debate but it makes it hard for you to make an absolute statement it cannot unless you want to start putting parameters on sustained or cargo.


----------



## HenryBHough

The F35 is a _beautiful_ airplane.  It'll look good on concrete plinths in parks all over America though what it says on the brass plaques attached to them may not go over so well with believers.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Your ability to argue without presenting any useful information is hilarious keep it up.


----------



## HenryBHough

Someone seems unable to differentiate argument from ridicule.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Someone can't acknowledge when they have no argument they are left with empty ridicule. Sign of a weak argument and an even weaker IQ.


----------



## HenryBHough

Why argue with the ridiculous?  Ridiculously overstuffed turkey, unsuitable even for roasting for a dinner but durable enough to stand proudly on those concrete plinths in public parks for decades.

Highest (they'll regularly fly) and best use!


True monuments to mission-creep gone mad.


----------



## SteadyMercury

I do appreciate you arriving to the thread. 

The point I made earlier about this group of people with a strong anti F-35 position yet who seem bizarrely incapable of discussing anything specific about the plane, just regurgitating cliches? Here comes HenryBHough galloping into the thread to prove my point and provide a perfect example, shouting his tired slogans and doing everything he can to avoid touching a concrete argument, every single post just hot air and no specifics. 

What is to argue its a turkey woohoo the pinnacle of HenryBHough's contributions to a thread about the capabilities of the F-35. 

Thanks for all the detailed data and brilliant points you've brought to the table Gomer.


----------



## SteadyMercury

HenryBHough said:


> True monuments to mission-creep gone mad.


HenryBHough, a true monument to someone attempting to contribute to a subject they are clearly clueless about.







Go Henry! We love your hollow cranium!


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35

F-35 cannot supercruise according to either definition used 
Supercruise Defense Issues


----------



## Manonthestreet

Sound sig is higher than current fourth gen


----------



## HenryBHough

And the true believers thank you for your billions of tax dollars!  And to think the turkey could have been equally overstuffed with just a few bags of bread crumbs!


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 cannot supercruise according to either definition used
> Supercruise Defense Issues


According to some poster on a forum who is guessing at performance number while saying Lockheed Martin is lying. How would that guy possibly know what he's claiming. If you go by the common definition of sustained supersonic speed without afterburner then F-35 has it. Either way point stands you can't dismiss it as a 5th gen fighter based on cherry picked definitions on something with no quantifiable data.



> Sound sig is higher than current fourth gen


You mean the takeoff noise thing? Who cares, how does that impact a mission.

Here: Noise from F-35B Comparable to F A-18s New Study Says Military.com


> An executive summary made public Oct. 31, ahead of the release of the full report, says the F-35B's noise level is comparable to or lower than the F/A-18s currently flying at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. The summary, released by the military's office for the Joint Strike Fighter, *indicated that the F-35B is slightly louder on takeoff, but significantly quieter on all approaches*.


----------



## SteadyMercury

HenryBHough said:


> And the true believers thank you for your billions of tax dollars!  And to think the turkey could have been equally overstuffed with just a few bags of bread crumbs!


Again proving my point about the brainless types in F-35 discussions, let's see if you can rack up 100 posts in this thread proving you know nothing about the plane by contributing nothing but hot air cliches.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Nobody is guessing its simple math that leads to inescapable conclusions of DOG.....or DEAD............. I provid links you provide the guess. F-35 I am Fighter Hear Me Roar 
Since then, F-35 noise levels that are reportedly up to 4x louder than early-model F-16s have made noise a basing issue beyond the United States. Recent developments involve Australia.
Advertisement


Decibels and Noise Levels


Maj. Davis’ sticking point is a side effect of the F-35’s 40,000 pound thrust single engine, which currently enjoys a large lead as the most powerful fighter engine on the market. That’s helpful for the fighter, but not so helpful when it comes to audible noise; the F-35 is reportedly close to 2 times louder than the F-15 fighter, and close to 4 times louder than an F-16. This issue has forced a delay in critical approvals for Eglin AFB, and has also become an international concern.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Nobody is guessing


Actually no, your last post about supercruise it was some guy on an internet forum who has never flown an F-35 and was pulling shit out of his ass while saying Lockheed Martin's numbers were wrong.




Manonthestreet said:


> Maj. Davis’ sticking point is a side effect of the F-35’s 40,000 pound thrust single engine, which currently enjoys a large lead as the most powerful fighter engine on the market. That’s helpful for the fighter, but not so helpful when it comes to audible noise; the F-35 is reportedly close to 2 times louder than the F-15 fighter, and close to 4 times louder than an F-16. This issue has forced a delay in critical approvals for Eglin AFB, and has also become an international concern.


I just posted a study from Nov 2014 that proved it was quieter than the F-18. Who to believe? I don't know, you get stuff all over the map:

_In 2009, testing reportedly revealed the F-35 to be: "only about as noisy as an F-16 fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 engine...quieter than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."[296] An acoustics study by Lockheed Martin and the Air Force found F-35's noise levels to be comparable to the F-22 and F/A-18E/F.[297] A USAF environmental impact study found that replacing F-16s with F-35s at Tucson International Airport would subject more than 21 times as many residents to extreme noise levels.[298] The USN will need to redesign hearing protection for sailors to protect against the "thundering 152 decibels" of the F-35.[299]_

Either way this would impact people living near an Air Force base because they are talking about takeoff noise with higher throttle, that is why the noise thing comes up in environmental impact studies.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Your problem is you cant be honest.........  no they are talking constant noise.....take a look at the tail of f-35 and compare to other stealth.....does not match.....you have 4th gen tail nozzle with zero sound mitigation......really not that hard......if you were honest


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Your problem is you cant be honest.........  no they are talking constant noise.....take a look at the tail of f-35 and compare to other stealth.....does not match.....you have 4th gen tail nozzle with zero sound mitigation......really not that hard......if you were honest


What on earth are you talking about honest? Because it is inconvenient to your crusade that there is evidence counter to what you choose to believe?

Are you an engineer who has worked on stealthy aircraft? What sort of credentials do you have where you look at pictures of a plane and your vast experience in engineering stealth technology allows you to discount all the design work, computer modelling, and more reputable sources and decide you know better and everyone else is being dishonest.

B-2 has no tail, I assume your master eyeball saw the F-22 and decided it wasn't stealthy either since didn't match?

Hilarious, armchair expertise level = 99.


----------



## Manonthestreet

In fact, F-35s IR stealth can be summed up in one word: nonexistant. It is the heaviest single-engined fighter in the world, and its single engine produces amount of thrust that equals that of many twin-engined fighters while having no IR signature reduction whatsoever (IR signature reduction measures were deleted to save weight). Its shape means large amount of drag, which also increases IR signature, as well as providing larger target for an IRST. Drag means that F-35 has to use afterburner to fly supersonically, increasing IR signature even further due to the large exhaust plume. Powerful radar also helps increase IR signature due to the cooling requirements. How stealthy is the F-35 Defense Issues As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Targeting system is obsolete alrdy  Is The F-35 s Targeting System Really 10 Years Behind Current Systems


----------



## HenryBHough

Australia seems to having a "Think Again" moment as they look more deeply into how America's Overstuffed Turkey shapes up against the Communist opposition:

White House apologizes for not sending top officials to Paris unity march World news The Guardian

"*ADVANCES in Chinese and Russian stealth technology and a gun that can’t shoot have once again put Australia’s next generation fighter in the firing line"
*
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is no stranger to controversy. It is, after all, the most expensive defence program in history. But the clamour of criticism is growing as new details emerge of its chief competitors — the Chinese J-20 and Russian T-50 stealth fighters."

"China, which topped the United States as the world’s largest economy in 2014, is pushing ahead with an ambitious military expansion program. And it’s throwing money at several new stealth designs to ensure their success."

"The result: A looming shift in the balance of air power that threatens to eliminate the air superiority lead the West has held since World War II."

*"An increasingly cash-strapped United States may be finding itself in a similar position to that of the United Kingdom before World War II — a waning world power in deep denial of its fading might."*

"All its air-defence eggs, along with those of most of its allies — are now in the one F-35 Lightning II basket. It’s too big to fail. *There are no fallback options*."



*Gee, THANK YOU, Mr. "president"!*


----------



## Billo_Really

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

This is a worthless piece of shit fighter that is a major waste of taxpayer money.  The A-10's are low maintenance, durable and doing fine.  There is no need to replace them.


----------



## mudwhistle

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

Same thing happened when they first introduced the F-14 Tomcat. The engines were too powerful for the body of the aircraft and they started crashing. So they put F-4 Phantom engines in them and the problem was solved.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> In fact, F-35s IR stealth can be summed up in one word: nonexistant.


Okay, then tell me what measurement you are using and how the F-35's IR signature compares to other fighters? I know it uses several technologies to reduce IR signature but honestly have no idea how it compares, do you?




Manonthestreet said:


> I
> How stealthy is the F-35 Defense Issues As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.


Hey cool you found the blog of the same guy from your last post, some guy who has dedicated his life to attacking the F-35. Like I said this plane draws a lot of strongly political motivations, and suckers like you who believe everything they read get sucked right into it.

Analyzing radar cross section, in m2: http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf 

F-15 = 10-25
F-16 = 5
F-18 = 1-3
F-22 = 0.0001 – 0.0005
F-35 = 0.0015 – 0.005
B-2 = 0.1 or less
F-117 = 0.025 or less

Clearly the F-35 is a low observable aircraft, their conclusion:

_The results from Table 2 confirm the argument that the average RCS increases
as the frequency gets lower. However, they also confirm that the F-35 RCS is really
low, at least as far as the fuselage is concerned. Especially in the X-band, the
calculated (average) RCS is even lower than the one revealed by USAF and the
decrease in detection range with respect to the “standard target” is dramatic. For
example, the APG68 of the F-16 is expected to “see” the F-35 at a distance of
roughly 5 NM. *The expected decrease of the detection range for the F-35 with respect
to conventional aircraft depicted in Table 3 indicates that the F-35 will be a real
danger, and not only as a first strike weapon.* _


----------



## Manonthestreet

More blather from someone who admits he doesnt know but steadfastly maintains others are wrong


----------



## SteadyMercury

I asked if you know what the IR signature of the F-35 is compared to other fighters either (since you are the one implying it is lacking) yet instead of taking this golden opportunity to support the argument you regurgitated you choose to basically admit you have no idea how it stacks up so were talking out of your ass, as usual.

I didn't say anyone was wrong about the F-35's IR signature, I just want proof not some retard saying it without knowing either.


----------



## HenryBHough

F35 so stealthy that Defense Ministers watching demonstration flights see only blue sky and are scammed that it's not only "stealthy" it's invisible!  Silent, too.

Sadly, none believe it.

Lack of faith?


----------



## westwall

Discombobulated said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loved the European Debut at this summer's Farnborough Air Show where it was hoped at least 90 orders would be placed by NATO members.
> 
> Here's a photo:
> 
> View attachment 35557
> Nope.
> 
> NOT that stealthy.
> 
> Just a no-show.
> 
> No orders, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, deliveries have been under way for a couple of years, the F-35 is operational.
> 
> United Kingdom F-35 F-35 Lightning II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> Operational when they're not grounded because of he discovery of yet another fatal flaw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your information is out of date.
Click to expand...








This info is far more accurate and relevant.


F-35 News Multimedia Discussion thread 2015 )


----------



## Manonthestreet

Large enough to get it dead before them......engine not embedded in the plane, no ir reduction whatsover and you have the largest eng in the fleet.....Soviets love irst


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Large enough to get it dead before them......engine not embedded in the plane, no ir reduction whatsover and you have the largest eng in the fleet.....Soviets love irst


Okay so for the third time I ask, what is the F-35s IR signature compared to other modern fighters?

Remember, you are the one who made the claim it was lacking. Surely you know, else just talking out of your ass eh?


----------



## Manonthestreet

PARIS --- Recent improvements in F-35 reliability figures are due to changes in the way failures are counted and processed, but do not reflect any actual improvement, according to the latest report by the Pentagon’s Director Operational Test & Evaluation. F-35 Program Massages Flight Test Results


----------



## SteadyMercury

Still waiting on your info on IR signature of F-35 versus other 5th gen fighters.

4th time asking.


----------



## HenryBHough

I believe they're waiting for the F35 grounding to be lifted so some figures can be produced.

It could be a while.


----------



## SteadyMercury

F-35s aren't currently grounded, but thanks for yet another non-contribution to the thread and for continuing to prove my point about people who know nothing about the plane yet love to condemn it.


----------



## HenryBHough

Not currently grounded?

OK, if you insist.

But where in hell is your _patience_?


----------



## SteadyMercury

HenryBHough said:


> I believe they're waiting for the F35 grounding to be lifted.


It is amazing how this weird group of people obsessed with the F-35 are willing to make such easily refutable claims.

Does being a liar come that easy to you HenryBHough? Actually don't answer that, obviously it does.

Last week at Nellis, from The Aviationist Photos of F-35 F-16 A-10 F-15E jets launching from Nellis Air Force Base


----------



## SteadyMercury

Actually since you've proven that you aren't really interested in discussing the topic and are willing to tell flat out lies just to troll, welcome to my ignore list. Good riddance.


----------



## westwall

Here is a more recent update on the project.  BTW I believe the IR signature info has not, nor will be released to the public any time soon.  I believe the term is "highly classified!


DOT E 2014 Annual Report Section on F-35.pdf - Box


----------



## SteadyMercury

Update on the weapons certification: F-35 weapons certification on track for this year - IHS Jane s 360

It says the Marines believe they are still on track for IOC of July 2015, which really surprises me given all the recent talk about software defects and that they haven't qualified the gun pod the B model would use. From source:



> "All weapons tests needed for Block 2B software, the software the US Marine Corps will use to declare IOC [initial operational capability], are complete and will be ready to go for combat capability," Lt Gen Bogdan said in a statement.
> 
> The corps will use the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) B-model of the aircraft, as well as a smaller number of carrier-variant C-models being procured by the US Navy (USN). The US Air Force (USAF) and several international customers, meanwhile, will fly the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) A-model.
> 
> Specific F-35 flight test milestones completed during the past four months include:
> 
> - The first live-fire testing on an F-35B ground test article were completed on 9 September.
> 
> - The first and night flights using the Generation III helmet-mounted display with 3iR4 software were completed on 9 September and 18 September, respectively.
> 
> - An AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) was launched from an F-35C on 30 September, marking the last weapon separation test needed for Block 2B software.
> 
> - The first F-35 day and night mission effectiveness close-air support (CAS) flights were conducted on 21 October and thus completed 2B software CAS testing.
> 
> - The first separation test of a GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb was also conducted on 21 October.
> 
> - The first F-35 external flutter tests flown with the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and Paveway IV missiles were conducted on 29 October and 13 November, respectively.
> 
> - The final buffet, loads and high-angle-of-attack testing required for F-35A Block 2B software were completed on 18 November.
> 
> - An F-35C set a record for 17 sorties in a day for a single F-35 aircraft on 5 November and a record 22 sorties with two F-35C test articles aboard USS _Nimitz_ for F-35C Sea Trials off the coast of San Diego from 3-14 November.
> 
> - Three Weapons Delivery Accuracy (WDA) live fire events were completed in single a week when the F-35 employed two AIM-120 AMRAAMs and one Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) from 18-25 November. These events included the first supersonic-guided missile launch and the first JDAM release on target coordinates generated from the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS).
> 
> The F-35 also surpassed 25,000 combined flight hours in December, and fleet aircraft flew twice as many of those as test articles did, the programme office said.



I believe USMC is declaring it IOC with AMRAAM, ASRAAM, JDAM, and Paveway. The source mentions SDB but I've no idea when that is planned, although I did see something about low rate production of SDB II for F-15E and F-35. I think Navy gets their fighters last and I know they had already tested it can fit JSOW internally.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Update on the weapons certification: F-35 weapons certification on track for this year - IHS Jane s 360
> 
> It says the Marines believe they are still on track for IOC of July 2015, which really surprises me given all the recent talk about software defects. From source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All weapons tests needed for Block 2B software, the software the US Marine Corps will use to declare IOC [initial operational capability], are complete and will be ready to go for combat capability," Lt Gen Bogdan said in a statement.
> 
> The corps will use the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) B-model of the aircraft, as well as a smaller number of carrier-variant C-models being procured by the US Navy (USN). The US Air Force (USAF) and several international customers, meanwhile, will fly the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) A-model.
> 
> Specific F-35 flight test milestones completed during the past four months include:
> 
> - The first live-fire testing on an F-35B ground test article were completed on 9 September.
> 
> - The first and night flights using the Generation III helmet-mounted display with 3iR4 software were completed on 9 September and 18 September, respectively.
> 
> - An AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) was launched from an F-35C on 30 September, marking the last weapon separation test needed for Block 2B software.
> 
> - The first F-35 day and night mission effectiveness close-air support (CAS) flights were conducted on 21 October and thus completed 2B software CAS testing.
> 
> - The first separation test of a GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb was also conducted on 21 October.
> 
> - The first F-35 external flutter tests flown with the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and Paveway IV missiles were conducted on 29 October and 13 November, respectively.
> 
> - The final buffet, loads and high-angle-of-attack testing required for F-35A Block 2B software were completed on 18 November.
> 
> - An F-35C set a record for 17 sorties in a day for a single F-35 aircraft on 5 November and a record 22 sorties with two F-35C test articles aboard USS _Nimitz_ for F-35C Sea Trials off the coast of San Diego from 3-14 November.
> 
> - Three Weapons Delivery Accuracy (WDA) live fire events were completed in single a week when the F-35 employed two AIM-120 AMRAAMs and one Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) from 18-25 November. These events included the first supersonic-guided missile launch and the first JDAM release on target coordinates generated from the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS).
> 
> The F-35 also surpassed 25,000 combined flight hours in December, and fleet aircraft flew twice as many of those as test articles did, the programme office said.
Click to expand...






The last time I checked there were something like 100 P1 bugs that needed to be rectified.  I think their goal is unrealistic but they should be able to get at least half of those fixed.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Yup I saw something similar. Looking over the list some didn't seem too critical for IOC (like the networking of sensors with others assets) but others like excessive false positives on DAS could really hamper effectiveness.

I'm a software developer so I know how lists of bugs can sounds a lot more daunting than they are, but for a fucking plane anything with the world "critical" is alarming despite the high number of hours they've flown the thing this year. USMC seems happy with the weapons testing though so who knows.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Yup I saw something similar. Looking over the list some didn't seem too critical for IOC (like the networking of sensors with others assets) but others like excessive false positives on DAS could really hamper effectiveness.
> 
> I'm a software developer so I know how lists of bugs can sounds a lot more daunting than they are, but for a fucking plane anything with the world "critical" is alarming despite the high number of hours they've flown the thing this year. USMC seems happy with the weapons testing though so who knows.







So far the weapons separation trials are going good.  They have tested most of the ordnance suite so far.  I believe they are still having issues with the gun ammunition though.  Why I have no idea, if there is one aspect of the military world with loads of empirical data, it is the internal and external ballistics realm.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Was wondering same thing, it isn't like 25mm is a new gun caliber. Was thinking maybe gun also taking long time because they trying do something fancier with software for aiming it using tracking data from other areas of sensor suite, like target led for gun as moving off angle using DAS or something. No idea.


----------



## mamooth

For at least 10 years, we heard the same kind of proclamations of doom about the V-22 Osprey. It was hopeless, it was a death trap, it was a payoff to corrupt contractors, and therefore we should go back to the old helicopters.

And now the V-22 Osprey is a solid performer in the field, with an 80+% readiness rate.


----------



## SteadyMercury

That is a good point, and Osprey had all the delays, maintenance issues, big cost increases, questions about it's usefulness... plus it was fucking killing marines. Now the Marines and spec ops forces absolutely love the V-22 and it has been a workhorse.

For a single engine plane in with a VTOL variant that relies on a lot of software to fly F-35 has been remarkably free of serious mishaps (said engine catching fire aside) and it has a lot more flight hours than many people realize.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The argument that the F-35 Lightning II is “too big to cancel” is not a good enough reason to keep it going.

The F-35 Lightning II, otherwise known as the Joint Strike Fighter, has a lot of critics and a lot of supporters. To cut through the debate currently being waged on the aircraft it is important to point out four facts about the situation the Department of Defense finds itself in: The F-35 is behind schedule and over-budget; it isn’t delivering the capabilities the military needs; the world is vastly different from the one in which the F-35 was envisioned; and fourth and most importantly, the DoD has cancelled, or terminated early, massive weapons programs in the past for similar reasons. Why The Defense Department Needs To Cancel The F-35 Program Task Purpose


----------



## SteadyMercury

Agreed, nothing is too big to cancel.

So regarding the F-35, what is the IR signature vs. other aircraft? You did criticize it for the IR signature but I've asked five times now and you've ignored it, so I',m guessing you were just talking out of your ass and have no idea, which is pretty common among the rabid F-35 critics. They can repeat headlines but don't really know much so kind of stumble when asked to back anything up.

Does that about sum it up, or do you really have a measure of the F-35 IR signature?

Fifth time asking.


----------



## HenryBHough

And the joy keeps on coming!

Genuinely Bad News About the F-35 and the A-10 Chickenhawk No. 17 - The Atlantic

"Then on Monday came the Defense-Aerospace.com story, which included the F-35 portion of the report (it is detailed and acronym-dense, but you can read it here) and highlighted something much more damaging than ongoing bugs. Namely, efforts by the F-35 program team to rig the results of their operational tests. The Defense-Aerospace.com report said (emphasis added):"


"Recent improvements in F-35 reliability figures are due to changes in the way failures are counted and processed, but do not reflect any actual improvement, according to the latest report by the Pentagon’s Director Operational Test & Evaluation...."

"Three different types of data “massaging” are identified in the report: moving failures from one category to another, less important one; ignoring repetitive failures, thus inflating numbers of failure-free hours; and improper scoring of reliability. *In all these instances, data reporting and processing rules were changed during the year for no other reason than to paint a more favorable picture."

*
As we have seen in this thread defending the A-10 over the overstuffed turkey doesn't just irritate the spendthrift establishment - it seriously pisses them off!
*
General Praising the A-10 to Lawmakers is Treason DoD Buzz
*
"A top U.S. Air Force general warned officers that praising the A-10 attack plane to lawmakers amounts to “treason,” according to a news report."


"Maj. Gen. James Post, vice commander of Air Combat Command, was quoted as saying, “If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it … anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason,” in a report published Thursday on The Arizona Daily Independent."

Meanwhile the A-10 keeps on doing what the F-35 will likely never be able to do:

A-10s Fly Combat Missions Over Syria War Is Boring Medium
*

*


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-14 was the result of a cancellation.....forget which one was axed


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> F-14 was the result of a cancellation.....forget which one was axed


6th time asking... you criticized the IR signature of the F-35, how does it compare to other fighters? Surely you know since you took it as a point of criticism.

Or maybe you just talk out of your ass without really knowing anything?


----------



## Manonthestreet

and yet you provide nothing to counter...or show the statement is false. I explained as did the links why its sig is higher.......


----------



## Manonthestreet

Flat panel technologies revolutionized cockpits during the 1990s and were the basis for an epochal shift from electromechanical and cathode-ray tube flight instruments to the avionics-grade sunlight-readable, reliable, active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs) that now dominate crew station design. Large-area AMLCDs have enabled the realization, in the F-35 cockpit, of the combat advantage demonstrated in the 1988-1992 AFRL ATD entitled Panoramic Cockpit Controls and Displays (PCCADS). PCCADS demonstrated that a large area, integrated main instrument panel display and a digital day/night vision/cueing system would increase combat effectiveness by 45 percent.

Current displays have limitations that have been accepted to affordably achieve threshold levels of pilot-vehicle interfaces. Technology obsolescence problems and improved performance opportunities require new innovations.  SBIR Air Force - F-35 Display Improvement 
Isnt that wonderful panels are alrdy obsolete......


----------



## Manonthestreet

And wont be operating from remote airfields ..... How To Supply Power And Air For The F-35 AviationPros.com 
The F-35 JSF is a significantly different aircraft compared to legacy fighters, such as the F-18 and F-16, it’s designed to replace:
The F-35 needs 270v DC ground power, not 400 Hz.
It also needs high-pressure cold dry air supplied to it for ground operations. 
The F-35 uses 270v DC power. This power supply is more advanced and different in almost every way from 400 Hz power we are used to.

Like 28v DC, it is more difficult to have long cable runs from the power supply to the aircraft. In other words, central 270v DC systems or putting this power supply far away from the aircraft is not possible.

The F-35 is also a very smart aircraft. If the quality of the 270v DC provided from the converter, or the 28v DC E&F safety power circuit is not the perfect voltage, amperage or harmonics at the aircraft plug, the aircraft will not accept the power and will not turn on when the ground crew hits the external power switch. Nobody likes it when that happens.

Due to required, shortened 270v DC cable lengths, the power converter will most often be located in the hangar.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> and yet you provide nothing to counter...or show the statement is false. I explained as did the links why its sig is higher.......


How can I counter when you can't provide any data?

It is kind of funny if you think about it:

1. You make a claim about the F-35's IR signature
2. I ask repeatedly what is it's signature or how does it compare to other planes, which you ignore
3. Now you want me to disprove your initial claim, that you never backed up in the first place

You haven't a clue what the F-35's IR signature is or how it compares to other planes do you? I sure don't, but I'm not the one disparaging said IR signature.

Blow hard much?


----------



## HenryBHough

Don't you have to actually fly an airplane to check for an IR signature?


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> In fact, F-35s IR stealth can be summed up in one word: nonexistant.


Again, this is where we are in contention.

How does the F-35's IR signature compare to other modern aircraft? Surely to make claims about it you have hard information about how it measures up to F-18, F-16, F-15E, etc.

So we are still waiting on BowHardontheStreet, who has now taken the hilarious position that I should be the one to counter his claim, that he can't even back up in the first place because he just regurgitated some text and has no idea about any of it.

So again, show you aren't a total blow hard and let the forum know how the F-35's IR signature measures up to other aircraft. Or ignore/dodge some more and demonstrate further that you know nothing more than talking out of your ass.


----------



## Manonthestreet

In the air combat role, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle. He has said further of the F-35: “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.” He has also been quoted as saying that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has made a mistake. Further from General Hostage,” If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet (of F-22s), I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.” It therefore follows that Australia, not having F-22s, has an irrelevant air combat capability in the F-35. Our Gold-Plated Hangar Queen Quadrant Online


----------



## HenryBHough

But none of that matters.

America has a defense policy of strength through weakness and apology these days and all the world loves us.

Don't they?


----------



## Manonthestreet

yes thats why our friends are abandoning us.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Helmet runs 400grand and also doesnt work


----------



## SteadyMercury

Hah hah nothing like purposely selective slicing parts of quotes to prove you rely on dishonesty.

Your quote:

"_He has also been quoted as saying that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has made a mistake_."

Full quote, from Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35 No Growlers Needed When War Starts Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary

"_But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft. The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat. The F-35 and the F-16 are the mainstay of the air fleet, designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks.  "_

Oops heh? Same article Hostage claims the F-35 has a much smaller radar cross section than F-22... since we're taking what he says as gospel you agree with that too right? F-35 is at least as maneuverable as an F-16 and with a lower RCS than F-22?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Talk about stupid, second wave ....first wave will splash its ass because of its altitude disadvantage.  Also you only have enough missiles for one wave.  Irrelevant is as  Irrelavant does. Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Now the source you just used (General Hostage) to take quotes out of context criticizing the F-35 is stupid?

Then why did you bother quoting from him if you consider his opinions stupid?

That is why I'm pretty skeptical of the dedicated F-35 bashers like you, quite the disingenuous tactic of selectively taking things out of context and alternating between supporting and criticizing the same source depending on whether they fit your agenda.

So let's be clear, is General Hostage a good source for info about the F-35 or not? You can't have it both ways.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> because of its altitude disadvantage


What altitude disadvantage?


----------



## Manonthestreet

SteadyMercury said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> because of its altitude disadvantage
> 
> 
> 
> What altitude disadvantage?
Click to expand...

Su 35 operates 15000 ft above F35.    Huge advantage. Also super cruises while Lightning does not. 
nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-bear-roars-the-sky-beware-the-deadly-su-35-11799


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Su 35 operates 15000 ft above F35.    Huge advantage.


Can you show me where you get the official service ceiling for the F-35 and the SU-35?

SU-35 service ceiling is about 59k feet, F-35 is classified but one sees estimates as high as 60k. Furthermore service ceiling is calculated running clean, a state F-35 will often be but an SU-35 will never be in.

And finally I'd like you to list every incident of air combat that has ever taken place above about 30k-35k feet.

and finally, from the source you just posted:


> “When taken as a singular platform, I like the Su-35’s chances against most of our platforms, with perhaps the exception of the F-22 and F-15C,” the naval aviator said. “I suspect the F/A-18E/F can hold it’s own and F-35 has presumed stealth and sensor management on its side.”



So your own source disagrees with your dismissing the F-35 versus the Su-35.

SU-35 is just another in a long line of Russian made planes that have looked amazing on paper and performed great doing tricks at air shows, but when air combat happens they under perform and get shot down by the US military. Ignorant suckers like you lap it up, ooh the scary new Russian plane, deja vu, a plane the F-35 would get first look first shot every time.

I don't think an SU-35 would even see an F-35 coming until it was dodging an AMRAAM.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Also still waiting on your declaration of whether General Hostage is a good source or not, but I'm used to having to keep at it with you since you rarely stick around to defend any position your blather about on here.

You posted an out of context quote from him to support your argument, but when full text was given it is suddenly described as stupid. So is General Hostage's opinion stupid or not, and if so I assume we disregard other things you've posted from him?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Really when is last time US fighters went up against first line fighters? 
You offer no facts as usual just uninformed opinion,,,,,,,you cant back one word of your post from an authoritative site....not one


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Really when is last time US fighters went up against first line fighters?


There have been plenty of engagements where opposing fighters were capable of very high altitudes, hell a MIG-25 could fly higher than any of these and many have been shot down by F-15s and F-16s.

F-15s and F-16s have also engaged and shot down MIG-29s (service ceiling 59k feet)

Su-35s facing an F-35 swould just be trying to outrun and dodge missiles coming from planes they cannot see or lock on to. The F-35 getting first shot takes the Su-35 completely out of it's focus of locating the F-35, he's trying to evade an AMRAAM while the F-35 is just lining up for another shot. 




Manonthestreet said:


> You offer no facts as usual just uninformed opinion,,,,,,,you cant back one word of your post from an authoritative site....not one


Great irony, as you continue to avoid any pretense of backing up any of the random crap you post here.

Still waiting on you to explain the measure of the IR signature of the F-35
Still waiting on whether we believe or disbelieve General
Still waiting for you official source on F-35 service ceiling
Still waiting on you explaining about all the air combat that takes place at 65k feet

Waiting, waiting... if it isn't something you can regurgitate from some questionable article you've read you're pretty hopeless aren't you?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Llmmmaaaoooo links buddy.....not just your uninformed blabber...


----------



## rightwinger

Delta4Embassy said:


> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.


 
Which is the problem the F-35 tries to solve

Combat is not always who is the fastest or most maneuverable. If I can see you a mile before you can see me, I will kill you


----------



## Manonthestreet

Except you can't. Cause not stealthy .....not to mention only plane that still trails black smoke is B-52 because of old engines.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Llmmmaaaoooo links buddy.....not just your uninformed blabber...


Hey imagine that, you again ignored any and all requests to clarify or explain your claims. What an easy way to debate, just say whatever you want and don't worry about proving it.

So again, just to show what a fool you are since we all know you cannot answer these:

Still waiting on you to explain the measure of the IR signature of the F-35
Still waiting on whether we believe or disbelieve General
Still waiting for you official source on F-35 service ceiling
Still waiting on you explaining about all the air combat that takes place at 65k feet


----------



## rightwinger

Manonthestreet said:


> Except you can't. Cause not stealthy .....not to mention only plane that still trails black smoke is B-52 because of old engines.


 
I don't have to be 100% stealthy......only more stealthy than you

If I see you first, you are dead


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Except you can't. Cause not stealthy


Oops, General Hostage (the guy you used as a source in another post) says here: Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35 No Growlers Needed When War Starts Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary



> *The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s*


Not that this forum expects ManOnTheStreet to ever quantify or back up his latest bullshit that the F-35 isn't stealthy.





Manonthestreet said:


> .....not to mention only plane that still trails black smoke is B-52 because of old engines.


As evidenced by the hundreds of pictures and videos of the plan showing it flying along without a trail of black smoke.

Again ManOnTheStreet goes full retard.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Cause not stealthy


Hah hah, apparently you don't know the definition of the word "not"


Radar Cross Section RCS 


> The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. B-2 stealth bomber has a very small cross section. The RCS of a B-26 bomber exceeds 35 dBm2 (3100m2 ) from certain angles. In contrast, the RCS of the B-2 stealth bomber is widely reported to be about -40dBm2 .


----------



## Manonthestreet

rightwinger said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except you can't. Cause not stealthy .....not to mention only plane that still trails black smoke is B-52 because of old engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to be 100% stealthy......only more stealthy than you
> 
> If I see you first, you are dead
Click to expand...

Not so.... A, you have to be able to shoot that far, farther the shot less chance of a hit..B you have burn thru their integral jamming. ...C once you shoot they see you and They will have altitude  and speed and range.....Russians can run passive too with AESA and irst.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F


SteadyMercury said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause not stealthy
> 
> 
> 
> Hah hah, apparently you don't know the definition of the word "not"
> 
> 
> Radar Cross Section RCS
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. B-2 stealth bomber has a very small cross section. The RCS of a B-26 bomber exceeds 35 dBm2 (3100m2 ) from certain angles. In contrast, the RCS of the B-2 stealth bomber is widely reported to be about -40dBm2 .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

F35 has frontal stealth only.... UnlikevF22 which is all aspect


----------



## Manonthestreet

SteadyMercury said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Llmmmaaaoooo links buddy.....not just your uninformed blabber...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey imagine that, you again ignored any and all requests to clarify or explain your claims. What an easy way to debate, just say whatever you want and don't worry about proving it.
> 
> So again, just to show what a fool you are since we all know you cannot answer these:
> 
> Still waiting on you to explain the measure of the IR signature of the F-35
> Still waiting on whether we believe or disbelieve General
> Still waiting for you official source on F-35 service ceiling
> Still waiting on you explaining about all the air combat that takes place at 65k feet
Click to expand...

I've been the one providing links.... You're the one talking around and ignoring. Why provide more when you ignore and bs


----------



## Manonthestreet

www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

One more to chew on. Not a pretty picture. At best we'll be trading one to one with f35.


----------



## Manonthestreet

hotair.com/archives/2014/12/04/dont-panic-but-pentagon-now-things-russia-can-jam-american-air-to-air-missiles/


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> F35 has frontal stealth only.... UnlikevF22 which is all aspect


But wait, you just said the F-35 wasn't stealthy. So when called on your bullshit, you backpedal and now it is only front stealthy?

 F-35 stealth is optimized frontal (where it matters most) but it has low observable characteristics favorable compared to 4th gen planes in all aspects, which renders both your first claim (not stealthy) and backpedal claim (only stealthy frontal) as complete bunk.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> I've been the one providing links.... You're the one talking around and ignoring. Why provide more when you ignore and bs


You provide links to articles from questionable sources, and when proven they have quotes taken out of context you suddenly switch views and declare the source stupid. I can spam as many positive F-35 links as you can negative, that doesn't get us anywhere.

You've proven you're too shallow here to do anything more than spam links, you are incapable of backing up or discussing any of the click-spam type articles.

Proof you are a fool who is only good for spamming links:

Still waiting on you to explain the measure of the IR signature of the F-35
Still waiting on whether we believe or disbelieve General Hostage
Still waiting for you official source on F-35 service ceiling
Still waiting on you explaining about all the air combat that takes place at 65k feet

No, the forum does not expect ManOnTheStreet to respond, he cannot and we know it.


----------



## Manonthestreet

SteadyMercury said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F35 has frontal stealth only.... UnlikevF22 which is all aspect
> 
> 
> 
> But wait, you just said the F-35 wasn't stealthy. So when called on your bullshit, you backpedal and now it is only front stealthy?
> 
> F-35 stealth is optimized frontal (where it matters most) but it has low observable characteristics favorable compared to 4th gen planes in all aspects, which renders both your first claim (not stealthy) and backpedal claim (only stealthy frontal) as complete bunk.
Click to expand...

Its not, if its not all aspect its worthless.


----------



## Manonthestreet

See ya still have nothing but your uninformed bs....yeah all my links,  how many now....20-30...... all from questionable  sources...... Lllmmmaaaoooo


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> Its not, if its not all aspect its worthless.


Well since earlier you were caught in a blatant lie saying F-35 wasn't stealthy, I'm sure you'll understand if we dismiss the latest claim about aspects of F-35 stealth as more bilge like everything else you post.

While F-35 is optimized for frontal aspect it still uses the sawtooth edges, inclined surfaces, and radar absorbing materials to provide LO characteristics in all aspects.

Still waiting on ManOnTheStreet to explain the measure of the IR signature of the F-35
Still waiting on whether we believe or disbelieve General Hostage
Still waiting for ManOnTheStreet's official source on F-35 service ceiling
Still waiting on ManOnTheStreet explaining about all the air combat that takes place at 65k feet

No, the forum does not expect ManOnTheStreet to respond, he cannot and we know it.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> yeah all my links,  how many now....20-30...... all from questionable  sources...... Lllmmmaaaoooo


And this explains your pretty well. You don't really understand any of this, yet you believe volume pasting links to shit you know nothing about amounts to a good argument, even though you clearly can't support your position when asked over and over to do so.

Here is an example of your spam bilge links work:

Manonthestreet from his link spam: 
*"He has also been quoted as saying that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has made a mistake. Further from General Hostage"*

It is pointed out that is taken out of context, the full quote being:
*"But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft. The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat. The F-35 and the F-16 are the mainstay of the air fleet, designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks."*

and what is Manonthestreet's response when shown the full quote?


> Talk about stupid, second wave ....first wave will splash its ass because of its altitude disadvantage



He turns on his own source, what was once his ammunition is now dismissed as "stupid"

Same source he used (General Hostage) also pointed out:
*"The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war."*

Manonthestreet's own linkspam source disagrees with his lies that the F-35 isn't stealthy. 

And that is why volume of links, from sources as ridiculous as "Business Insider" do not prove a point, being able to understand and argue the subject matter does. Speaking of which:

Still waiting on ManOnTheStreet to explain the measure of the IR signature of the F-35
Still waiting on whether we believe or disbelieve General Hostage
Still waiting for ManOnTheStreet's official source on F-35 service ceiling
Still waiting on ManOnTheStreet explaining about all the air combat that takes place at 65k feet

No, the forum does not expect ManOnTheStreet to respond, he cannot and we know it.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> In fact, F-35s IR stealth can be summed up in one word: nonexistant.


Checking in... since you've made this claim you've been asked to explain how the F-35s IR signature has been measured and how it compares to 4th gen fights dozens of times over at least three months.

We all know you have no idea how the IR compares, but since you continue to make claims you can't back up I'll keep asking just to watch you ignore and look like a fool.

3 months of asking *Manonthestreet* to man up and support his arguments, and counting...


----------



## HenryBHough

India spent a lot of time, maybe too much time, weighing the pros and cons of not just the F-35 but a host of other possibilities.

Now they've decided:

India Agrees to Fighter-Jet Deal With Dassault Aviation - WSJ


----------



## Manonthestreet

PARIS --- US Air Force plans to replace the F-35 fighter’s avionics, radar and engines are an implicit admission that the current aircraft is already obsolete and that, despite a unit cost of over $250 million, it cannot match the latest foreign fighters coming into service. USAF Plans for Radical F-35 Upgrade Reveal Obsolescence


----------



## SteadyMercury

Heh heh another utterly retarded opinion piece the exact words of General Harrigan, from here: 
U.S. Air Force eyes future F-35 engine and arms upgrades Reuters



> He said the Air Force was already looking at follow-on capabilities for the F-35, given rapid technology development by potential adversaries, and ensuring that the infrastructure was in place to allow such upgrades. "We are already considering and thinking through what are some of the technologies that will be part of the F-35," Harrigian said. "This is not the time to rest on your laurels."
> 
> Harrigian gave few details but said potential upgrades could include new avionics systems, radar, laser weapons and a new more fuel-efficient engine. "I don't think we would take anything off the table at this point," he said.



Clearly your hit piece was taking his comments out of context, and suckers like you gulp it up. Omigosh the plane is obsolete because they didn't put lasers on it yet!


----------



## SteadyMercury

Latest on costs for F-35A:

F-35 Costs Stabilize Army Program Breaches


> But perhaps the best news for the Pentagon overall is the $7.7 billion cost reduction for the F-35 joint strike fighter.
> 
> The F-35 is set to be the backbone of American air power for the foreseeable future, but has a well-earned reputation as a budget hog. Program officials and industry executives have said they are focused on bringing costs down, and Pentagon auditors seem to agree, citing work by prime and subcontractors to drive down those price tags.
> 
> *The current average F-35A price is $108 million — with the engine — which is $4 million lower than previous estimates.*


----------



## Manonthestreet

For the money alrdy spent for which you dont have 1 combat rdy plane, you could have totally replaced your SSBN fleet even at the high estimate of 8 billion per copy and have over 200 billion left over.


----------



## Manonthestreet

In the end, the USS America is another victim of the F-35's high risk concurrency procurement strategy, and quite honestly, it may be the biggest example of the whole debacle in both size and cost. Logic would dictate that developing key enabling technologies early on and waiting to test those technologies along with the new fighter aircraft they work with would be essential before putting any of them into production, let alone a $7 billion aircraft carrier.
Instead we're busy playing a very expensive catch-up game in reverse, to the point of building entire capital ships that cannot even exchange data with let alone operate the very fighter aircraft they were specifically designed for!

Maybe the saddest part of all of this is that the Navy named the F-35B's tailor-made ship the USS America. Then again, considering how seemingly mismanaged our country has become, this may actually be a fairly accurate title. Navy Builds Ship For F-35 Ship Needs Months Of Upgrades To Handle F-35


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> In the end, the USS America is another victim of the F-35's high risk concurrency procurement strategy, and quite honestly, it may be the biggest example of the whole debacle in both size and cost. Logic would dictate that developing key enabling technologies early on and waiting to test those technologies along with the new fighter aircraft they work with would be essential before putting any of them into production, let alone a $7 billion aircraft carrier.
> Instead we're busy playing a very expensive catch-up game in reverse, to the point of building entire capital ships that cannot even exchange data with let alone operate the very fighter aircraft they were specifically designed for!
> 
> Maybe the saddest part of all of this is that the Navy named the F-35B's tailor-made ship the USS America. Then again, considering how seemingly mismanaged our country has become, this may actually be a fairly accurate title. Navy Builds Ship For F-35 Ship Needs Months Of Upgrades To Handle F-35



The problem is the deck.  The F-35B would weaken the normal deck so they use a hot temp deck where it will be taking off in VTOL mode.  Where it operates as a STOL it can use a normal deck.  Plus, the carrier must be able to network with the fighters it launches.  The F-35B doesn't replace the F-18 or any other conventional fighter including the A-10.  It does replace the Harrier which is nearing the time it starts falling out of the sky due to age and the fact new parts are no longer made.  The Marines had to buy the Brits Harriers just for parts.


----------



## Manonthestreet

They are going to have to retro all you small carriers or just convert them to drone and choppers.. Cost for this program is going to sink the navy by itself


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Not doing it will severely give China the advantage.  We can't afford NOT to do the upgrades.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Will we be able to afford anything else is the question.......doesnt work read the thread.......


----------



## HenryBHough

Is it possible that Iran infiltrated a couple of engineers into the program to twist the design in such a way that retrofits and repairs will bankrupt America in a style even the leftmost of liberals could not imagine?


----------



## Manonthestreet

They've had weapons programs like this before that tried to do too much and consequently did nothing well...... difference was they were cancelled instead of maintained.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Will we be able to afford anything else is the question.......doesnt work read the thread.......



I did but you didn't.  We need stealthy birds as well as Gen 4 birds on Navy Ships.  If it takes upgrades to accomplish this, we can't afford not to do it.  Otherwise, there are going to be ships going off like flash bulbs.  Just how many dead Marines and Sailors will be enough to satisfy your blood lust.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 Engines From United Technologies Called Unreliable F-35 Engines From United Technologies Called Unreliable - Bloomberg Business


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will we be able to afford anything else is the question.......doesnt work read the thread.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did but you didn't.  We need stealthy birds as well as Gen 4 birds on Navy Ships.  If it takes upgrades to accomplish this, we can't afford not to do it.  Otherwise, there are going to be ships going off like flash bulbs.  Just how many dead Marines and Sailors will be enough to satisfy your blood lust.
Click to expand...

See dumbass thats what I'm trying to highlite....if it doesnt work......its dead.......along with everything it was supposed to "protect".........F-35 doesnt work


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 Engines From United Technologies Called Unreliable F-35 Engines From United Technologies Called Unreliable - Bloomberg Business



Geez, they are using at least 2 year old information.  
Every one of these have been address and fixed.  The F-35B goes into service later on this year, the F-35C goes into service early next year and the F-35A goes into service any day now.  No, they won't have guns until early 2017 but if you are that close, you ain't flyin' yer Bird like it should.  Even the F-22 has trouble handling the light fighters up close.  That's why we keep the F-16 and F-18s around.  And the F-15 is still the NUMBER ONE dogfighter or Air Interdiction there is.  

The idea is to use your passive avionics and fire while you are still outside the enemies detection.  And both the F-35 and the F-22 uses that as it's bread and butter.  The bird that fires the missiles don't need radar lock.  They can get that from Ground Control or a EC-135 which has much longer and stronger radar.  

You just can't stand it that the F-35 is very close into going into service and there is nothing you can do about it except fight the trimming of other areas that needs to be done anyway to pay for them.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will we be able to afford anything else is the question.......doesnt work read the thread.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did but you didn't.  We need stealthy birds as well as Gen 4 birds on Navy Ships.  If it takes upgrades to accomplish this, we can't afford not to do it.  Otherwise, there are going to be ships going off like flash bulbs.  Just how many dead Marines and Sailors will be enough to satisfy your blood lust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See dumbass thats what I'm trying to highlite....if it doesnt work......its dead.......along with everything it was supposed to "protect".........F-35 doesnt work
Click to expand...


I can see that you have already lost this.  You are resorting to unsubstantiated runon sentences and insults.  The F-35 is going into production even as I type this and will be entering service late this year.


----------



## HenryBHough

With the overstuffed turkey going into service the Air Force needs to step up pilot training.  Gonna need lots of replacements if there is an actual aerial conflict.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> With the overstuffed turkey going into service the Air Force needs to step up pilot training.  Gonna need lots of replacements if there is an actual aerial conflict.



Or we can not do it at all and the pilots will just have to learn how to die in their version 4 aircraft going against the other countries 4.5.  Do you hate the United States of America this bad?  Maybe you should move to a place more suitable for your views like Iran or Syria.


----------



## HenryBHough

Gee, Daryl....

Out of logic already and degenerating into personal attack?

Of course you are!  Silly me thinking you might have had anything else.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Gee, Daryl....
> 
> Out of logic already and degenerating into personal attack?
> 
> Of course you are!  Silly me thinking you might have had anything else.



You just don't like it that I already stated the facts and they don't agree with your BS.  You can't stand it that the F-35 is working, the engines are fine, the avionics are better than anything else in the world and it's stealthy to boot.  It starts coming into the inventory this year.  There isn't any logic to your posts.  Now tell me WHY the F-35 isn't going to be in full production this year and entering into service.  Britain is extatic about  starting to already receiving theirs.It must suck to be as wrong as you usually are.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, Daryl....
> 
> Out of logic already and degenerating into personal attack?
> 
> Of course you are!  Silly me thinking you might have had anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't like it that I already stated the facts and they don't agree with your BS.  You can't stand it that the F-35 is working, the engines are fine, the avionics are better than anything else in the world and it's stealthy to boot.  It starts coming into the inventory this year.  There isn't any logic to your posts.  Now tell me WHY the F-35 isn't going to be in full production this year and entering into service.  Britain is extatic about  starting to already receiving theirs.It must suck to be as wrong as you usually are.
Click to expand...

It is a lame duck and a grave for both pilots and billions.
F-35 Lightning II disaster for the USAF US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the overstuffed turkey going into service the Air Force needs to step up pilot training.  Gonna need lots of replacements if there is an actual aerial conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we can not do it at all and the pilots will just have to learn how to die in their version 4 aircraft going against the other countries 4.5.  Do you hate the United States of America this bad?  Maybe you should move to a place more suitable for your views like Iran or Syria.
Click to expand...

I recommend Syria. Syria grants freedom of speech, etc. Iran is not so free.


----------



## HenryBHough

Daryl Hunt said:


> Britain is extatic about  starting to already receiving theirs.It must suck to be as wrong as you usually are.



So ecstatic that they're talking about cancelling their aircraft carriers since it seems they couldn't use the overstuffed turkey without major rebuilding.

Yup.  Gotta love those Swiss Army Knives among airplanes!  A Shopsmith for the new century!

But dream on - maybe your stock will stay up if enough people drink the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain is extatic about  starting to already receiving theirs.It must suck to be as wrong as you usually are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So ecstatic that they're talking about cancelling their aircraft carriers since it seems they couldn't use the overstuffed turkey without major rebuilding.
> 
> Yup.  Gotta love those Swiss Army Knives among airplanes!  A Shopsmith for the new century!
> 
> But dream on - maybe your stock will stay up if enough people drink the Kool-Aid.
Click to expand...


If the Falklands fires up again (and it will) they have no AC for the carriers they have with them selling most of the Harrers to the US Marines for parts.  You only read what makes your UnAmerican case.  How much is Putin and China paying you to keep posting this drivel.


----------



## HenryBHough

Daryl Hunt said:


> If the Falklands fires up again (and it will) they have no AC for the carriers they have with them selling most of the Harrers to the US Marines for parts.  You only read what makes your UnAmerican case.  How much is Putin and China paying you to keep posting this drivel.



You are correct that, should Argentina go after The Malvinas again the once-proud British Navy is likely to be toast.

Buying into this boondoggle may well cost Britain those islands but it's OK because your Lockheed-Martin stock will stay up.

You talk about "UnAmerican" when you so blatantly put profit before pilots lives?

Really?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Falklands fires up again (and it will) they have no AC for the carriers they have with them selling most of the Harrers to the US Marines for parts.  You only read what makes your UnAmerican case.  How much is Putin and China paying you to keep posting this drivel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that, should Argentina go after The Malvinas again the once-proud British Navy is likely to be toast.
> 
> Buying into this boondoggle may well cost Britain those islands but it's OK because your Lockheed-Martin stock will stay up.
> 
> You talk about "UnAmerican" when you so blatantly put profit before pilots lives?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


Tell me, Rambo, what are your creds for Military?  Care to compare them to mine?  I want our pilots to have as many edges as they can have.  Your bunch crammed the sequester down the Military's throat and curbed training.  Now you want to take another tool away from them that puts them above the other guy.  And for what?  You cost pilots lives that way.  Just because your handler tells you.  Try thinking for yourself for a change.


----------



## HenryBHough

Daryl Hunt said:


> Tell me, Rambo, what are your creds for Military?  Care to compare them to mine?  I want our pilots to have as many edges as they can have.  Your bunch crammed the sequester down the Military's throat and curbed training.  Now you want to take another tool away from them that puts them above the other guy.  And for what?  You cost pilots lives that way.  Just because your handler tells you.  Try thinking for yourself for a change.



Sounding a little frazzled sonny!

Please define "Your bunch..." since you know nothing of me or any affiliations I might or might not have.  You can only be ASSuming....and you know what that means.

Who do you presume is my "handler..." and upon what sort of logic to you base that ASSumption?

If I were to assume anything it might be that you have a bit of Lockheed-Martin stock and perhaps a few share of the company that makes the military issue coffins for the pilots you want to see sent off in an overstuffed turkey that, had mission-creep not destroyed it, might been something really hot.

Yes, one can pick one's teeth with a Swiss Army knife; maybe cut some cheese with it and even open a corked bottle of wine.  But what is amazing is not that it does any of those things well, it's that it does them AT ALL and, usually, without injuring the user.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, Rambo, what are your creds for Military?  Care to compare them to mine?  I want our pilots to have as many edges as they can have.  Your bunch crammed the sequester down the Military's throat and curbed training.  Now you want to take another tool away from them that puts them above the other guy.  And for what?  You cost pilots lives that way.  Just because your handler tells you.  Try thinking for yourself for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounding a little frazzled sonny!
> 
> Please define "Your bunch..." since you know nothing of me or any affiliations I might or might not have.  You can only be ASSuming....and you know what that means.
> 
> Who do you presume is my "handler..." and upon what sort of logic to you base that ASSumption?
> 
> If I were to assume anything it might be that you have a bit of Lockheed-Martin stock and perhaps a few share of the company that makes the military issue coffins for the pilots you want to see sent off in an overstuffed turkey that, had mission-creep not destroyed it, might been something really hot.
> 
> Yes, one can pick one's teeth with a Swiss Army knife; maybe cut some cheese with it and even open a corked bottle of wine.  But what is amazing is not that it does any of those things well, it's that it does them AT ALL and, usually, without injuring the user.
Click to expand...


Only you say that I am frazzled, kid.  Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

Since you dig up articles by people less qualified than me that use 2 years and earlier information to write their own "Opinions" and you just accept that as true.  Newsflash, Kewpie:  The F-35 has been the one holding things up and it goes into service THIS year.  Next year, the F-35C for the Navy goes into production and service.  in 2017, the F-35A (the most ready one of the three) goes into service, maybe even sooner.  You can't change that.
Actually, I helped more than a few get jobs at Lockheed.  But that has nothing to do with things.  We NEED the F-35A in the Airforce badly and the Harriers for the Marines are about to start dropping out of the sky.  Britain has these neat little Harrier Carriers and not a harrier to put on them.  

The F-35 isn't designed to hurt itself, it's designed to hurt the other guy.  And it starts this year to go into service.  Your handler hasn't told you that?  Of course not.


----------



## HenryBHough

My "handler"?  Did you overlook my question about who you feel that might be or was the question simply too hard?

Meanwhile, keep on believing. 

It's kinda cute!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> My "handler"?  Did you overlook my question about who you feel that might be or was the question simply too hard?
> 
> Meanwhile, keep on believing.
> 
> It's kinda cute!



You are nothing but a cheap troll.  Have a nice day.


----------



## there4eyeM

Wasting money on outmoded techniques.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Wasting money on outmoded techniques.



You made the statement.  Now, back it up.  And don't use info from 2 years or more ago and idiots with Editor in their title that use 2 year old information.


----------



## there4eyeM

Battleships in WWII.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Battleships in WWII.



That has nothing to do with the F-35 or, for that matter, the F-22.  These both are the cutting edge head and shoulders over anything else.  the PAK-50 is just another 4.5 gen equivalent to a F-15ES that no one is buying.  

We used to use Battleships as a show of force.  You would be surprised when it was used in the Middle East.  
Each shell took out 3 city blocks.  Things would get mighty quiet after a couple of those monsters went off.  But it was just too much, too dangerous and too expensive when one F-16 can do the same job.  

Now, again, tell my why the F-35 is already out of date.


----------



## there4eyeM

Pilotless is the future.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Pilotless is the future.



Part of the future.  I can think of many ways to defeat a pilotless fighter.  The Navy already tried a system where the pilot loses conciousness and the AC takes over.  Worked beyond their wildest nightmares.  They had to clear the whole area of any and all Aircraft until the Pilot regained his senses.  That system was removed so fast it would make your head spin.  Your drone style controls won't work and the last thing you want is for an AI to have it's finger on the firing pin.


----------



## there4eyeM

And battleships couldn't be sunk by airplanes.
Technology has already superseded big targets and fragile human-carrying war horses. It will only get more advanced. Cheap, highly maneuverable remote-controlled planes will overwhelm these over-priced, boondoggle toys.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> And battleships couldn't be sunk by airplanes.
> Technology has already superseded big targets and fragile human-carrying war horses. It will only get more advanced. Cheap, highly maneuverable remote-controlled planes will overwhelm these over-priced, boondoggle toys.



One drone target was singled out on a Highway in Afg.  Right color, right make, right area.  The drone operator already had the crosshairs on the car. He noticed some red and white and did a closer pass.  It wasn't the right car, that car was coming from a Wedding with the Bride and Groom.   An AI would have launched.  But we both know that a drone can be defeated with jamming.  So, it all boiled down to the eye balls and judgement of the pilot whether it's a drone of an AC.  The pilotless AI Fighter is still somewhere in Science Fiction.  Will be for quite some time.


----------



## HenryBHough

To bring an F35 to an exchange with even France's Rafael is to go into a duel with a Swiss Army Knife against a Samurai sword.  Of course the chances of going to war with France are not great but, then, the French DO sell those excellent fighters to other countries.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> To bring an F35 to an exchange with even France's Rafael is to go into a duel with a Swiss Army Knife against a Samurai sword.  Of course the chances of going to war with France are not great but, then, the French DO sell those excellent fighters to other countries.



Glad you brought that up.  Okay, you are holding your fancy japanese sword.  And your enemy is armed with a *Tanegashima* introduced in Japan in 1543.  The *Tanegashima. *a flintlock.  that changed the way war was fought in Japan.Good case in point was shown in T_he Three Musketeers_ (1993 film).  And also in one of the Indiana Jones flix.  

The F-35 sees the Rafale 20 miles before it can see them.  It fires a passive seeker.  At about the time the Rafaeel finally sees the Lightning.  Right about then, the Rafales sensors go off just before the first missile hits.  Never bring a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unfortunately, we will probably see.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Unfortunately, we will probably see.



What we export isn't what we use  Our Aim-120 has at least 20 miles more range than the ones we export.  Same goes for even the lowly F-16 exports and avionics.   Even our F-15 has some of it's Avionics systems still repaired and calibrated behind the door of a Vault.  This is why the F-15 has a 107 to 0 combat record.  In the games, the USAF handicaps their birds to not let the others know just how good they really are.  But in our own games, a flight of 6 F-22s bagged 15 F-15s with no losses.  There is no reason that the F-23 should fare much worse than the F-22.  If you think the upgrades for the F-35 is just for the F-35, they are also finding their way into the F-22 and F-15 and every dime of R&D goes against the F-35 bill.


----------



## HenryBHough

The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters.  So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we will probably see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we export isn't what we use  Our Aim-120 has at least 20 miles more range than the ones we export.  Same goes for even the lowly F-16 exports and avionics.   Even our F-15 has some of it's Avionics systems still repaired and calibrated behind the door of a Vault.  This is why the F-15 has a 107 to 0 combat record.  In the games, the USAF handicaps their birds to not let the others know just how good they really are.  But in our own games, a flight of 6 F-22s bagged 15 F-15s with no losses.  There is no reason that the F-23 should fare much worse than the F-22.  If you think the upgrades for the F-35 is just for the F-35, they are also finding their way into the F-22 and F-15 and every dime of R&D goes against the F-35 bill.
Click to expand...


We are actually building f-15s for foreign nations that are more advanced than ours


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters.  So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.



Then it's not a boondoggle.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters.  So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not a boondoggle.
Click to expand...


Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we will probably see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we export isn't what we use  Our Aim-120 has at least 20 miles more range than the ones we export.  Same goes for even the lowly F-16 exports and avionics.   Even our F-15 has some of it's Avionics systems still repaired and calibrated behind the door of a Vault.  This is why the F-15 has a 107 to 0 combat record.  In the games, the USAF handicaps their birds to not let the others know just how good they really are.  But in our own games, a flight of 6 F-22s bagged 15 F-15s with no losses.  There is no reason that the F-23 should fare much worse than the F-22.  If you think the upgrades for the F-35 is just for the F-35, they are also finding their way into the F-22 and F-15 and every dime of R&D goes against the F-35 bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are actually building f-15s for foreign nations that are more advanced than ours
Click to expand...


Not in the Avionics.  The US F-15C/D/E still has a 20 mile buffer over the exported versions as well as a longer ranged Aim-120.  But at some point, the C/D models will have to be replace due to age.  But not right now.  They can still more than hold their own (great plane with great pilots) anything thrown at them.  Yes, the PAK-50 can see them but what they see is the Eagle launching Missiles at it before they can launch on the F-15.  Again, the F-15 has a 20 mile buffer to work with.  Now, against real stealth agressors, the F-15 will have a bad problem with them.  The only country with the real stealth birds are the US right now.  You can turn, dive, stand it on it's tail, do a backslide and make it bark like a dog but if you are dodging missiles you aren't in the fight.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters.  So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not a boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.
Click to expand...


Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?


----------



## HenryBHough

Will the overstuffed turkey make it into service?

It might.

How long will it remain _*serviceable*_?


----------



## there4eyeM

Good question. 

Wonder how many bottles of corporate Champagne have been uncorked over it?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Will the overstuffed turkey make it into service?
> 
> It might.
> 
> How long will it remain _*serviceable*_?



Yer just trolling now.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Good question.
> 
> Wonder how many bottles of corporate Champagne have been uncorked over it?



Not nearly as many as the "Save the A-10" bunch.


----------



## HenryBHough

Daryl Hunt said:


> Yer just trolling now.



Damn, I gotta stop asking questions that are _*too hard*_!


----------



## there4eyeM

We should invest in French wine.


----------



## there4eyeM

Duck! A lame F35!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yer just trolling now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I gotta stop asking questions that are _*too hard*_!
Click to expand...


Well, Troll, I sent my crystal ball out to be cleaned.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> We should invest in French wine.



Actually, that's not a bad idea with the drought in California which affects the wine production.


----------



## HenryBHough

Daryl Hunt said:


> Well, Troll, I sent my crystal ball out to be cleaned.



Will you wait until it's back to send another one?  Or, like the overstuffed turkey, possessed of but ONE ball?  I will admit the F35 started out as a good idea.  But like a particularly beautiful spruce, too many people thought too many things would look good hanging off it. What once might have been a great fighter has become a bloated laughingstock.

But, if it'll make you feel better about it, check out this link and you'll find a graceful "out".  Just blame it all on The Republicans!

Republicans The Cocaine Monkeys of Defense Spending - The Daily Beast


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Troll, I sent my crystal ball out to be cleaned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you wait until it's back to send another one?  Or, like the overstuffed turkey, possessed of but ONE ball?  I will admit the F35 started out as a good idea.  But like a particularly beautiful spruce, too many people thought too many things would look good hanging off it. What once might have been a great fighter has become a bloated laughingstock.
> 
> But, if it'll make you feel better about it, check out this link and you'll find a graceful "out".  Just blame it all on The Republicans!
> 
> Republicans The Cocaine Monkeys of Defense Spending - The Daily Beast
Click to expand...


Tell you what, you send yours out to be condemned.  Okay, Troll, I'll let  you have last say no matter how rediculous that may be.  Have a nice day.


----------



## HenryBHough

Pity there's no defense left for Obama's overstuffed turkey.

The most recent news on the "fighter front" shows another of America's allies deciding the F35 isn't worth the bloated price:

France Sells 24 Rafale Fighters to Qatar


----------



## HenryBHough

No longer need I call the F35 "an overstuffed turkey"!

Nope.

Now the Brits have come up with a new and improved label:

"White Elephant".

New US fighter jet on course to becoming one of history s biggest white elephants - Home News - UK - The Independent

_"A plane so technologically advanced that it would give Britain and the US air superiority in any future conflict and billed as the world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet, could be one of “the biggest white elephants in history”, according to a former defence minister."

"The aircraft, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, was designed to replace the Harrier jump-jet, which went out of service in 2011. The UK once envisaged ordering 150 F-35s, to be ready by 2012. Three years on, the F-35 is still far from ready to fly in combat and the cost of a single jet has risen from £33m to £87m. The UK has ordered only eight to date."_

Gee, Golly, Gosh!  Fast approaching three times the "original" project cost.  Want to bet it'll break that barrier before a single one goes into (probably for a very short time) service?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Personally, I'd kill of the f-35 and build another 200 f-22's!


----------



## Cross

The Harrier doesn't do anything better than the F 35 B.

But they are lighter.

Marine operational training on the USS Wasp.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Remington Hall)


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
Click to expand...


The F-4 got new engines that cured the smoking pole problem.  That wasn't the reason it was retired.  

The F-4 came from a time when it was thought if you have enough power that you could intercept your target beyond visual range and shoot it down.  The missiles of that time were that capable on fighter type targets.  The F-4 was a bomber interceptor.  AS long as you forced your enemy into a vertical fight, the F-4 could just about hang with anything.  The problem was, sooner or later, it would turn into a turning fight.  This was where the F-4 was weakest.  The F-4 was conceived from a time that the talking heads all claimed that dog fighting was past.  It's been proven wrong.  When you see an aircraft with so many surfaces at an odd angle, that is to compensate for bad design.  

Plus, the F-4 proved if you put enough gas onboard it can have range and power at the same time.  It guzzle fuel.  The J-79 engine, while a marvel in it's day, was a hungry, hungry engine.

What made the F-4 work was the pilots.  Our pilots were high time pilots with excellent training.  I remember when Spang and Bitburg first went at it in a mock full generation.  The F-4Es (slatted) held their own against the F-15As.  But the rest of the story was, Spang had a 95% generation rate while Bitburg had the best generation rate for any F-15 outfit of 33%.  The F-15 held it's own with a 1 to 3 odds.  That's been fixed and the F-15C/D/E has that 95% generation rate.  As of about 1980, the day of the F-4 was gone.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cross said:


> The Harrier doesn't do anything better than the F 35 B.
> 
> But they are lighter.
> 
> Marine operational training on the USS Wasp.
> 
> (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Remington Hall)
> 
> View attachment 41477



The Marines do need the F-35.  The problem is, there has been a push to get the F-35B first.  This has kept the other two (A/C) to slow in it's progress.  The AF isn't supposed to have the A in service until 2017 but it looks like it will be in  service in 2016.  The gun won't be ready to fire in combat until about 2017 but it's ready for ground attack with missiles and bombs.  While it won't have the capability until 2017 for the guns and the externals, it's capable if now to use internals.  Like the F-15 (also had the same problem with being too new and needing time to mature) it will grow until it reaches it's maturity.  Every great fighter has gone through this same problem.  Those that weather it become great.  Those that don't end up just a blurp in history.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters.  So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not a boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?
Click to expand...


No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters.  So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not a boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.

Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes

Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes

Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes

Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes

Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes

Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes

Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes

Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters.  So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not a boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes
> 
> Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes
> 
> Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes
> 
> Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes
> 
> Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes
> 
> Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes
> 
> Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?
Click to expand...








You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.  

The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.

Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.

Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.

Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.

The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.  

Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not a boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes
> 
> Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes
> 
> Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes
> 
> Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes
> 
> Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes
> 
> Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes
> 
> Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
Click to expand...


The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.

The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time. 

Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe. 

Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.

That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.

The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.

All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Major systems do not work yet....it will never be anywhere close to any action for two three yrs if then


----------



## Manonthestreet

not to mention the systems alrdy obsolete that need to be replaced


----------



## Manonthestreet

you know what could control whole lot of drones better than f35......its called awacs or jstars


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The AWACS can't be within 200 miles of any ground or air  threats.  It comes within that and it stands out like a beacon in the sky.  Even the Moon is more stealthy.  

I already covered the things it can do.  You can't stand it that it's going online for the Marines in less than 2 months and production ramps up which lowers the price per unit.  When it's in full production it will cost about 85 mil.  Not much more than a Growler AND less than a new F-15.  

As for obsolete systems, exactly what is obsolete?  Newsflash, 10 minutes after a new system is introduced, it's already obsolete since they are already working on the next system to replace it.

As for growing pains, the F-15 was introduced in 1976 yet it didn't start coming into it's own until 1980 when the Multiphased radar was introduced into the A model and the C was going into production.  So, you have gotten only one thing right.  3 or 4 years to maturity is about right.  The F-15 had the same argument since it was the most expensive Fighter ever produced from 1980 and earlier.  It cost more than the F-14 if the F-14 had stayed in production.  And we all know just how crappy the F-15 turned out to be.  It's owned the skies for almost 40 years hands down.  

Just how much is the Russians paying you to keep this up, Comrade.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes
> 
> Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes
> 
> Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes
> 
> Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes
> 
> Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes
> 
> Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes
> 
> Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.
> 
> The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.
> 
> Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe.
> 
> Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.
> 
> That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.
> 
> The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.
> 
> All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.
Click to expand...










On the contrary.  I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world.  To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies.  As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money.  The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.

Radar from the 1980's?  They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km.  That's outstanding performance.  The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get.  The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations.  They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.

For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below.  The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.

The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.

And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines?  It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.  

The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4.  Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago.  Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!

Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> The AWACS can't be within 200 miles of any ground or air  threats.  It comes within that and it stands out like a beacon in the sky.  Even the Moon is more stealthy.
> 
> I already covered the things it can do.  You can't stand it that it's going online for the Marines in less than 2 months and production ramps up which lowers the price per unit.  When it's in full production it will cost about 85 mil.  Not much more than a Growler AND less than a new F-15.
> 
> As for obsolete systems, exactly what is obsolete?  Newsflash, 10 minutes after a new system is introduced, it's already obsolete since they are already working on the next system to replace it.
> 
> As for growing pains, the F-15 was introduced in 1976 yet it didn't start coming into it's own until 1980 when the Multiphased radar was introduced into the A model and the C was going into production.  So, you have gotten only one thing right.  3 or 4 years to maturity is about right.  The F-15 had the same argument since it was the most expensive Fighter ever produced from 1980 and earlier.  It cost more than the F-14 if the F-14 had stayed in production.  And we all know just how crappy the F-15 turned out to be.  It's owned the skies for almost 40 years hands down.
> 
> Just how much is the Russians paying you to keep this up, Comrade.


doesnt matter if its pushing massive amount of drones it'll overwhelm the defenses


----------



## Manonthestreet

f-35 cant dogfight and aint stealthy........thing is a sitting duck.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes
> 
> Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes
> 
> Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes
> 
> Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes
> 
> Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes
> 
> Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes
> 
> Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.
> 
> The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.
> 
> Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe.
> 
> Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.
> 
> That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.
> 
> The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.
> 
> All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world.  To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies.  As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money.  The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.
> 
> Radar from the 1980's?  They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km.  That's outstanding performance.  The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get.  The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations.  They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.
> 
> For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below.  The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.
> 
> The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.
> 
> And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines?  It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.
> 
> The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4.  Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago.  Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!
> 
> Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.
> 
> The Indians already came out with the info on the T-50.  They were supposed to be a manufacturer of it.  The problems they reported (they got a couple of copies, you didn't) was that the Avionics Package was way outdated and the engines were unfit for a combat aircraft.  And it lacked the 5 gen ability to be called a Stealth anything.  Just because it look stealthy doesn't mean it really is one.  It takes longer to paint the F-35 than anything else.  It takes 3 full days and they can't miss a step.  Making an AC that is pea green doesn't make it a stealth anything.  The J-20 has the same problem.
> 
> Now, about that IR stuff.  You have to get close to the object for it to work.  While the T-50 is playing grabassed games with it's toys, the first indication he gets that the enemy is there will be the lock on the radar.  It could come from a F-22 or a F-35 and the missile fired could come from any of the US two fighters.  Meanwhile, you are now looking where it's coming from and the first indication of the real direction is the visual of the incoming missile.  Something that Rickenbaker was famous for.  Disrupt the fighter escort enabling the pickoff of the other aircraft at will.  Robin Olds and his wingman did the same thing when two P-38s attacked a formation of over 50 German Fighters amassing to attack the bombers.That day, Olds bagged three and his wingman bagged two and both made it home.  You don't have to kill them, just disrupt them and turn them into a swarm.  The F-22 and the F-35 are designed to do just that without detection firing from the extreme range for the Aim-120 which has a longer range than anything the Russians (or anyone else) has.  That is forefront of every enemy pilot will have on his mind going into combat with the US.  That is quite a edge.
> 
> Now, about that KA-31.  It's an antiship missile, not an air to air missile.  Once again, your misinformation is astounding.  You can't be working for the Russians.  They just aren't that stupid.
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a good long hard look at the R-77 missile.  It comes in two flavors for the Russians and a third variant for export.  While it's better than the Aim-7, the Aim-120 flies circles around it.  The Russians (Soviets) tried to duplicate the Aim-54 which is the best of the best and  at a million bucks per copy was phased out right after the Soviets started to turn out the Aim-54 copy.  The R-77 never came close to competing with the Phoenix even though it looks like a copy.
> 
> So far, you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You may wish to fire up that Borche and gum that for awhile.
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes
> 
> Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes
> 
> Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes
> 
> Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes
> 
> Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes
> 
> Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes
> 
> Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.
> 
> The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.
> 
> Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe.
> 
> Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.
> 
> That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.
> 
> The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.
> 
> All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world.  To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies.  As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money.  The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.
> 
> Radar from the 1980's?  They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km.  That's outstanding performance.  The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get.  The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations.  They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.
> 
> For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below.  The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.
> 
> The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.
> 
> And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines?  It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.
> 
> The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4.  Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago.  Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!
> 
> Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.
> 
> The Indians already came out with the info on the T-50.  They were supposed to be a manufacturer of it.  The problems they reported (they got a couple of copies, you didn't) was that the Avionics Package was way outdated and the engines were unfit for a combat aircraft.  And it lacked the 5 gen ability to be called a Stealth anything.  Just because it look stealthy doesn't mean it really is one.  It takes longer to paint the F-35 than anything else.  It takes 3 full days and they can't miss a step.  Making an AC that is pea green doesn't make it a stealth anything.  The J-20 has the same problem.
> 
> Now, about that IR stuff.  You have to get close to the object for it to work.  While the T-50 is playing grabassed games with it's toys, the first indication he gets that the enemy is there will be the lock on the radar.  It could come from a F-22 or a F-35 and the missile fired could come from any of the US two fighters.  Meanwhile, you are now looking where it's coming from and the first indication of the real direction is the visual of the incoming missile.  Something that Rickenbaker was famous for.  Disrupt the fighter escort enabling the pickoff of the other aircraft at will.  Robin Olds and his wingman did the same thing when two P-38s attacked a formation of over 50 German Fighters amassing to attack the bombers.That day, Olds bagged three and his wingman bagged two and both made it home.  You don't have to kill them, just disrupt them and turn them into a swarm.  The F-22 and the F-35 are designed to do just that without detection firing from the extreme range for the Aim-120 which has a longer range than anything the Russians (or anyone else) has.  That is forefront of every enemy pilot will have on his mind going into combat with the US.  That is quite a edge.
> 
> Now, about that KA-31.  It's an antiship missile, not an air to air missile.  Once again, your misinformation is astounding.  You can't be working for the Russians.  They just aren't that stupid.
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a good long hard look at the R-77 missile.  It comes in two flavors for the Russians and a third variant for export.  While it's better than the Aim-7, the Aim-120 flies circles around it.  The Russians (Soviets) tried to duplicate the Aim-54 which is the best of the best and  at a million bucks per copy was phased out right after the Soviets started to turn out the Aim-54 copy.  The R-77 never came close to competing with the Phoenix even though it looks like a copy.
> 
> So far, you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You may wish to fire up that Borche and gum that for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







The person with the misinformation is you.  The engines are 5th gen, period.  The radar is a advanced AESA system that is the equivalent of our best.  They no doubt stole it from us but the facts are that your information is crap.  The link below has the best info on the aircraft.  Yes, I highlighted the wrong missile, sue me, I was in a hurry and was relying on an admittedly faulty memory.  However, your completely false info on the PAK-FA is simply ridiculous.  You have to stop using wiki for your info.


"Russia’s new T-50-variant Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (PAK FA) may feature the most accurate air-to-air missile system ever devised. The new system specifically targets the ability of skilled fighter pilots to engage in violent maneuvers to break missile locks in older-generation technology, based on a radar system held within the nose of the missile.

The new missile, pegged the K-77M, was described by _Russia Today _as an “absolute killer.” It notes that what sets the K-77M’s technology apart from its counterparts is the implementation of a “active phased array antenna (APAA)” which essentially solves the lock-on problem by addressing the radar’s “field of view” problem.  Previously, this limitation allowed pilots to swing their jets out of the range of a tailing guided missile when in close proximity, evading the scope of the radar’s view. The K-77M essentially implements a solution similar to the Raytheon’s Patriot surface-to-air (SAM) missile system, according to _Russia Today_.
New Russian Air-to-Air Missiles Will Field Almost Perfect Accuracy The Diplomat"


The PAK-FA News Pics Debate Thread XXIV


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes
> 
> Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes
> 
> Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes
> 
> Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes
> 
> Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes
> 
> Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes
> 
> Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.
> 
> The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.
> 
> Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe.
> 
> Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.
> 
> That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.
> 
> The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.
> 
> All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world.  To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies.  As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money.  The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.
> 
> Radar from the 1980's?  They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km.  That's outstanding performance.  The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get.  The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations.  They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.
> 
> For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below.  The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.
> 
> The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.
> 
> And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines?  It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.
> 
> The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4.  Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago.  Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!
> 
> Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.
> 
> The Indians already came out with the info on the T-50.  They were supposed to be a manufacturer of it.  The problems they reported (they got a couple of copies, you didn't) was that the Avionics Package was way outdated and the engines were unfit for a combat aircraft.  And it lacked the 5 gen ability to be called a Stealth anything.  Just because it look stealthy doesn't mean it really is one.  It takes longer to paint the F-35 than anything else.  It takes 3 full days and they can't miss a step.  Making an AC that is pea green doesn't make it a stealth anything.  The J-20 has the same problem.
> 
> Now, about that IR stuff.  You have to get close to the object for it to work.  While the T-50 is playing grabassed games with it's toys, the first indication he gets that the enemy is there will be the lock on the radar.  It could come from a F-22 or a F-35 and the missile fired could come from any of the US two fighters.  Meanwhile, you are now looking where it's coming from and the first indication of the real direction is the visual of the incoming missile.  Something that Rickenbaker was famous for.  Disrupt the fighter escort enabling the pickoff of the other aircraft at will.  Robin Olds and his wingman did the same thing when two P-38s attacked a formation of over 50 German Fighters amassing to attack the bombers.That day, Olds bagged three and his wingman bagged two and both made it home.  You don't have to kill them, just disrupt them and turn them into a swarm.  The F-22 and the F-35 are designed to do just that without detection firing from the extreme range for the Aim-120 which has a longer range than anything the Russians (or anyone else) has.  That is forefront of every enemy pilot will have on his mind going into combat with the US.  That is quite a edge.
> 
> Now, about that KA-31.  It's an antiship missile, not an air to air missile.  Once again, your misinformation is astounding.  You can't be working for the Russians.  They just aren't that stupid.
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a good long hard look at the R-77 missile.  It comes in two flavors for the Russians and a third variant for export.  While it's better than the Aim-7, the Aim-120 flies circles around it.  The Russians (Soviets) tried to duplicate the Aim-54 which is the best of the best and  at a million bucks per copy was phased out right after the Soviets started to turn out the Aim-54 copy.  The R-77 never came close to competing with the Phoenix even though it looks like a copy.
> 
> So far, you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You may wish to fire up that Borche and gum that for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <quote>
> The person with the misinformation is you.  The engines are 5th gen, period.  The radar is a advanced AESA system that is the equivalent of our best.  They no doubt stole it from us but the facts are that your information is crap.  The link below has the best info on the aircraft.  Yes, I highlighted the wrong missile, sue me, I was in a hurry and was relying on an admittedly faulty memory.  However, your completely false info on the PAK-FA is simply ridiculous.  You have to stop using wiki for your info.</quote>
> 
> According to the Indians, the engine is toast.  If it can't make the required service life, it's junk.  It may be able to supercruise but for how long?  A dead engine ends the mission pretty damned quick
> 
> <quote>
> "Russia’s new T-50-variant Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (PAK FA) may feature the most accurate air-to-air missile system ever devised. The new system specifically targets the ability of skilled fighter pilots to engage in violent maneuvers to break missile locks in older-generation technology, based on a radar system held within the nose of the missile.
> 
> The new missile, pegged the K-77M, was described by _Russia Today _as an “absolute killer.” It notes that what sets the K-77M’s technology apart from its counterparts is the implementation of a “active phased array antenna (APAA)” which essentially solves the lock-on problem by addressing the radar’s “field of view” problem.  Previously, this limitation allowed pilots to swing their jets out of the range of a tailing guided missile when in close proximity, evading the scope of the radar’s view. The K-77M essentially implements a solution similar to the Raytheon’s Patriot surface-to-air (SAM) missile system, according to _Russia Today_.
> New Russian Air-to-Air Missiles Will Field Almost Perfect Accuracy The Diplomat"
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA News Pics Debate Thread XXIV
Click to expand...


NewsFlash:  Russia Today is owned by the Russian Government.


westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them?  Yes
> 
> Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker?  Yes
> 
> Can it handle managing Drones?  Yes
> 
> Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on?  Yes
> 
> Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay?  Yes
> 
> Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers?  Yes
> 
> Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb?  Yes
> 
> Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed.  Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production.  By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million.  About the cost of a new F-15.  Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly.  The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968.  You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.
> 
> The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.
> 
> Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe.
> 
> Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.
> 
> That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.
> 
> The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.
> 
> All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world.  To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies.  As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money.  The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.
> 
> Radar from the 1980's?  They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km.  That's outstanding performance.  The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get.  The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations.  They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.
> 
> For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below.  The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.
> 
> The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.
> 
> And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines?  It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.
> 
> The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4.  Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago.  Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!
> 
> Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.
> 
> The Indians already came out with the info on the T-50.  They were supposed to be a manufacturer of it.  The problems they reported (they got a couple of copies, you didn't) was that the Avionics Package was way outdated and the engines were unfit for a combat aircraft.  And it lacked the 5 gen ability to be called a Stealth anything.  Just because it look stealthy doesn't mean it really is one.  It takes longer to paint the F-35 than anything else.  It takes 3 full days and they can't miss a step.  Making an AC that is pea green doesn't make it a stealth anything.  The J-20 has the same problem.
> 
> Now, about that IR stuff.  You have to get close to the object for it to work.  While the T-50 is playing grabassed games with it's toys, the first indication he gets that the enemy is there will be the lock on the radar.  It could come from a F-22 or a F-35 and the missile fired could come from any of the US two fighters.  Meanwhile, you are now looking where it's coming from and the first indication of the real direction is the visual of the incoming missile.  Something that Rickenbaker was famous for.  Disrupt the fighter escort enabling the pickoff of the other aircraft at will.  Robin Olds and his wingman did the same thing when two P-38s attacked a formation of over 50 German Fighters amassing to attack the bombers.That day, Olds bagged three and his wingman bagged two and both made it home.  You don't have to kill them, just disrupt them and turn them into a swarm.  The F-22 and the F-35 are designed to do just that without detection firing from the extreme range for the Aim-120 which has a longer range than anything the Russians (or anyone else) has.  That is forefront of every enemy pilot will have on his mind going into combat with the US.  That is quite a edge.
> 
> Now, about that KA-31.  It's an antiship missile, not an air to air missile.  Once again, your misinformation is astounding.  You can't be working for the Russians.  They just aren't that stupid.
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a good long hard look at the R-77 missile.  It comes in two flavors for the Russians and a third variant for export.  While it's better than the Aim-7, the Aim-120 flies circles around it.  The Russians (Soviets) tried to duplicate the Aim-54 which is the best of the best and  at a million bucks per copy was phased out right after the Soviets started to turn out the Aim-54 copy.  The R-77 never came close to competing with the Phoenix even though it looks like a copy.
> 
> So far, you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You may wish to fire up that Borche and gum that for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person with the misinformation is you.  The engines are 5th gen, period.  The radar is a advanced AESA system that is the equivalent of our best.  They no doubt stole it from us but the facts are that your information is crap.  The link below has the best info on the aircraft.  Yes, I highlighted the wrong missile, sue me, I was in a hurry and was relying on an admittedly faulty memory.  However, your completely false info on the PAK-FA is simply ridiculous.  You have to stop using wiki for your info.
> 
> 
> "Russia’s new T-50-variant Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (PAK FA) may feature the most accurate air-to-air missile system ever devised. The new system specifically targets the ability of skilled fighter pilots to engage in violent maneuvers to break missile locks in older-generation technology, based on a radar system held within the nose of the missile.
> 
> The new missile, pegged the K-77M, was described by _Russia Today _as an “absolute killer.” It notes that what sets the K-77M’s technology apart from its counterparts is the implementation of a “active phased array antenna (APAA)” which essentially solves the lock-on problem by addressing the radar’s “field of view” problem.  Previously, this limitation allowed pilots to swing their jets out of the range of a tailing guided missile when in close proximity, evading the scope of the radar’s view. The K-77M essentially implements a solution similar to the Raytheon’s Patriot surface-to-air (SAM) missile system, according to _Russia Today_.
> New Russian Air-to-Air Missiles Will Field Almost Perfect Accuracy The Diplomat"
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA News Pics Debate Thread XXIV
Click to expand...


I am not going to play fair (well the way you think).  It's time to bring in the Indians accessment of the Pak 5th gen fighter.  Read?  Sorry to bust your bubble but I won't be using the propaganda site you are using.  Russia Today is solely owned by the Russian Government.  Well, here goes.

Let's start out with a nice article.  
India to invest 25 billion in FGFA project Russia India Report
The engine isn't ready and the first batch in 2016 or test purposes will have an interim engine belonging to the SU-27.  NO Supercruise.  The Avionics are on the drawing board and not ready for production until the future (if at all).  The only thing ready is the airframe which can't do the 5gen.  It's more a 4.5 gen.  

http://www.janes.com/article/50530/analysis-india-faces-crunch-decision-over-rafale-pak-fa 

Here is a quote from Janes.

""f you put your resources into the T-50, then the IAF becomes an almost all-Russian fleet, and you are betting your future force structure on an aeroplane that is almost solely on paper at present. If you decide to go with the Rafale, then you are forgetting about having a fifth-generation aeroplane, but at least you know everything on this platform exists and works pretty much as advertised," he added."  

Mostly on paper.  The Russians are flying the few demonstrators on an interim engine because they still can't get the supercruise engine to work.  They are using much of the equipment from the SU-27 which is gen4 at best unless they actually do what they promise on paper.  The Russians claim that it will be going into service in 2016.  I don't see how.  The Engine that it's supposed to get is still in the engineering stage and not in production since it's got so many problems right now.  Nothing that time won't cure.  But that time is predicted by most as more like 2025 and it might be better than the F-22 by 2025 if the F-22 and the F-35 were to stay static.  They won't, you can bet.  Plus, by 2025, the US will start fielding 6th gen fighters.  And don't even bring up the SU-35 or the Mig-35.  Both ended up being such problem children hardly anyone wants to buy them.

The reason India has gone this route is that they will NEVER get a F-22 or a US equipped F-35 for avionics and sensors.  When you buy the F-35 for export, you pretty much have to roll yer own on the avionics and sensors.  The closest country with that capability is Israel and you want to bet that Israel won't export their stuff either.  So the Indians can't get the deal they want from the F-35 so they go with the longshot for the T-50 PAK.  Even so, they are still a generation behind the US and will probably stay that way along with Russia.

Now, prove that the T-50 is better than either the F-22 and the F-35 (both flying) with the F-22 in constant upgrades from the systems constantly developing for the F-35 and the F-35 goes into service in July of this year.  That's less than 2 months.  Prove that the Paper T-50 PAK is better.   This is sort of like arguing all those VunderVeapons from Germany for late in WWII.  Sure saved them, didn't it.  You run what brung you to the dance.  And right now, the only two Gen 5 Fighters are the F-22 and the F-35.  And the Military and Industry is pretty well tight lipped on both of those.  Better for your enemy to think they are less than they really are.

When any Aircraft from other Countries do mock battles, both sides cripple their aircraft so you won't know the other sides capability.  The Rafale or a few others just might win that battle but to find out how the F-22 really is in battle, you have to do actually deadly combat against it.  Right now, the F-15 can pretty well hold it's own against the so called Gen 4.5 fighters since it's been upgraded to that level already.  It's been proven in battle already that the F-15 can out turn a Mig-29 which no one admitted to until it did it.  The Mig-29 pilot was very experienced avoiding the BVR, closing on the F-15 and the fight went into an old style dogfight.  It wasn't the gun that bagged the Mig-29, it was the plain jane Aim9.  

The only way you can be truly sure is by pitting the T--50 PAK against the F-22/F-35 in battle and the Russians are a decade away from having it ready.  Until then, the best it can do is a Gen 4.5+ and that just ain't good enough anymore.


----------



## Manonthestreet

It'll toast an F-35 in a heartbeat


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> It'll toast an F-35 in a heartbeat



How, by running into it?  The one copies of the T-50 Pak has no guns, can't fire missiles, drop bombs, no avionics, no sensors, stands out like a sore thumb since they still haven't got idea of what stealth really is,   It's using the engines from a SU-27 for the interim since they just can't seem to get the new engine to work right.  

Now, since most of it is still on paper, it's not much more than a paper airplane.  Today, not in 10 years, how can the Pak-FA defeat a F-35?  Give it a paper cut?

BTW, I am retired AF and was at the first forward operating base of the F-15A.  I saw the most expensive fighter of the 1970s grow from a fragile, abort crazy desk weight to the best in the World, barring none.It took it about 4 years to get it all together.  Yet you expect the F-35 to have it all together right now even before it's operational.  When you lose that argument, you turn to a paper airplane that the Russians claim is better.  Until it gets it's engines and avionics installed and ironed out, there is no way in hell it's serviceable.  Maybe by 2025 as some pros predict but not in 2016 like the Russians Claim.  Each time it gets to the date they promised it, they just move the goal posts.  Times up.  The F-35A goes operational next year and so does the F-35C.  The F-35B goes operational in a little over a month.  Don't expect the US to wait until 2025 to keep updating the F-22 and F-35.  Hell, by then, even the F-15 may be able to take it.  By then, the F-15 will just gum it to death.

Now, prove that it IS better than either the F-22 or the F-35.  Or are you just gumming yer oatmeal.


----------



## HenryBHough

In Britain they are concerned that the budget they nhas for a squadron might buy thhem eight...but only if the codt overruns end NOW.

Which they won't.

Hey, turkey stuffin' ain't cheap!


----------



## Manonthestreet

Su 35 su 30 fly higher, faster, farther than f-35 carry more missles have better jamming capability against missles fired at them......really is no contest


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Su 35 su 30 fly higher, faster, farther than f-35 carry more missles have better jamming capability against missles fired at them......really is no contest



If the F-35 ever competes at an Air Show then you might be right.  It seems that the only real buyers for the SU-35 is Russia and they aren't buying very many of them.  Meanwhile, the tried and true Mig-30 seems to be grabbing the export orders.  

I checked the range of it's weapons, radar and IR detectors.  85km.  At about 150 km, they are already dodging missiles and they can't quite figure out where it's coming from.  You are assuming that the US fighters will always cooperate fully with them and let them fight their own fight.  The US will pick the fight, the range and type weapons used.

Try again.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101



The bird flying fat dumb and happy sure ain't going to be the agressor.  Now you are trying to force the US Fighters to get sucked into the strong points of the enemy.  We stopped doing that by the end of Vietnam.  It's not going to be a gunfight in the opening rounds.  It's going to be an Aim-120 game with the other side getting blooded first.  How bad it's hard to tell because, unlike you, my crystal ball is at the cleaners.  AFter the good stuff is spent by both sides, it's going to be back to the Gen 3 and 4 Aircraft and at that point, the best Gen 4 is still the F-15.  I learned that during a Wargame when all the good stuff (at that time the F-15 was used up along with the F-4, F-14 and the F-16.  The other side didn't fare any better.  Both sides ended up with Attack AC being used as fighters.  And the A-10 didn't dare cross the english channel due to the SU7 waiting for it.  The A-7 and A-4 was still around.  The older Attack birds won by just being more numerous on both sides.

You have no idea on the deaths of both sides in their shiny new fighters.  Keep it up much longer and we will be throwing rocks at each other.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.
> 
> The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.
> 
> Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe.
> 
> Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.
> 
> That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.
> 
> The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.
> 
> All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world.  To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies.  As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money.  The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.
> 
> Radar from the 1980's?  They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km.  That's outstanding performance.  The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get.  The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations.  They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.
> 
> For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below.  The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.
> 
> The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.
> 
> And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines?  It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.
> 
> The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4.  Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago.  Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!
> 
> Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.
> 
> The Indians already came out with the info on the T-50.  They were supposed to be a manufacturer of it.  The problems they reported (they got a couple of copies, you didn't) was that the Avionics Package was way outdated and the engines were unfit for a combat aircraft.  And it lacked the 5 gen ability to be called a Stealth anything.  Just because it look stealthy doesn't mean it really is one.  It takes longer to paint the F-35 than anything else.  It takes 3 full days and they can't miss a step.  Making an AC that is pea green doesn't make it a stealth anything.  The J-20 has the same problem.
> 
> Now, about that IR stuff.  You have to get close to the object for it to work.  While the T-50 is playing grabassed games with it's toys, the first indication he gets that the enemy is there will be the lock on the radar.  It could come from a F-22 or a F-35 and the missile fired could come from any of the US two fighters.  Meanwhile, you are now looking where it's coming from and the first indication of the real direction is the visual of the incoming missile.  Something that Rickenbaker was famous for.  Disrupt the fighter escort enabling the pickoff of the other aircraft at will.  Robin Olds and his wingman did the same thing when two P-38s attacked a formation of over 50 German Fighters amassing to attack the bombers.That day, Olds bagged three and his wingman bagged two and both made it home.  You don't have to kill them, just disrupt them and turn them into a swarm.  The F-22 and the F-35 are designed to do just that without detection firing from the extreme range for the Aim-120 which has a longer range than anything the Russians (or anyone else) has.  That is forefront of every enemy pilot will have on his mind going into combat with the US.  That is quite a edge.
> 
> Now, about that KA-31.  It's an antiship missile, not an air to air missile.  Once again, your misinformation is astounding.  You can't be working for the Russians.  They just aren't that stupid.
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a good long hard look at the R-77 missile.  It comes in two flavors for the Russians and a third variant for export.  While it's better than the Aim-7, the Aim-120 flies circles around it.  The Russians (Soviets) tried to duplicate the Aim-54 which is the best of the best and  at a million bucks per copy was phased out right after the Soviets started to turn out the Aim-54 copy.  The R-77 never came close to competing with the Phoenix even though it looks like a copy.
> 
> So far, you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You may wish to fire up that Borche and gum that for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <quote>
> The person with the misinformation is you.  The engines are 5th gen, period.  The radar is a advanced AESA system that is the equivalent of our best.  They no doubt stole it from us but the facts are that your information is crap.  The link below has the best info on the aircraft.  Yes, I highlighted the wrong missile, sue me, I was in a hurry and was relying on an admittedly faulty memory.  However, your completely false info on the PAK-FA is simply ridiculous.  You have to stop using wiki for your info.</quote>
> 
> According to the Indians, the engine is toast.  If it can't make the required service life, it's junk.  It may be able to supercruise but for how long?  A dead engine ends the mission pretty damned quick
> 
> <quote>
> "Russia’s new T-50-variant Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (PAK FA) may feature the most accurate air-to-air missile system ever devised. The new system specifically targets the ability of skilled fighter pilots to engage in violent maneuvers to break missile locks in older-generation technology, based on a radar system held within the nose of the missile.
> 
> The new missile, pegged the K-77M, was described by _Russia Today _as an “absolute killer.” It notes that what sets the K-77M’s technology apart from its counterparts is the implementation of a “active phased array antenna (APAA)” which essentially solves the lock-on problem by addressing the radar’s “field of view” problem.  Previously, this limitation allowed pilots to swing their jets out of the range of a tailing guided missile when in close proximity, evading the scope of the radar’s view. The K-77M essentially implements a solution similar to the Raytheon’s Patriot surface-to-air (SAM) missile system, according to _Russia Today_.
> New Russian Air-to-Air Missiles Will Field Almost Perfect Accuracy The Diplomat"
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA News Pics Debate Thread XXIV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NewsFlash:  Russia Today is owned by the Russian Government.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making.  The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority.  The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.
> 
> 
> The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.
> 
> Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted.  Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.
> 
> Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones?  Ummm, yes.  For a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.
> 
> The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.
> 
> Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties.  They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be.  However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s.  The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it.  It's already been confirmed that the best  rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6.  You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird.  The Motors are crap as well.
> 
> The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open.  Ever see one open, fire and close?  About a second to 2 time.  Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.
> 
> Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job.  No MKII aiming.  You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017.  They don't need to be down in the weeds.  And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target.  The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds.  if ICUUCMe.
> 
> Yes, Air Command Posts already can.   As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it.  You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance.  Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin,  Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area.  The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back.  What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare.  If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard.  If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover.  There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad.  Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.
> 
> That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships.  They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does.  Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair.  The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track.  Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards.  If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again.  The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.
> 
> The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy.  They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs.  The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.
> 
> All your points are just too easy to dispel.  As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job.  The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world.  To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies.  As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money.  The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.
> 
> Radar from the 1980's?  They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km.  That's outstanding performance.  The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get.  The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations.  They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.
> 
> For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below.  The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.
> 
> The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.
> 
> And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines?  It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.
> 
> The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4.  Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago.  Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!
> 
> Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.
> 
> The Indians already came out with the info on the T-50.  They were supposed to be a manufacturer of it.  The problems they reported (they got a couple of copies, you didn't) was that the Avionics Package was way outdated and the engines were unfit for a combat aircraft.  And it lacked the 5 gen ability to be called a Stealth anything.  Just because it look stealthy doesn't mean it really is one.  It takes longer to paint the F-35 than anything else.  It takes 3 full days and they can't miss a step.  Making an AC that is pea green doesn't make it a stealth anything.  The J-20 has the same problem.
> 
> Now, about that IR stuff.  You have to get close to the object for it to work.  While the T-50 is playing grabassed games with it's toys, the first indication he gets that the enemy is there will be the lock on the radar.  It could come from a F-22 or a F-35 and the missile fired could come from any of the US two fighters.  Meanwhile, you are now looking where it's coming from and the first indication of the real direction is the visual of the incoming missile.  Something that Rickenbaker was famous for.  Disrupt the fighter escort enabling the pickoff of the other aircraft at will.  Robin Olds and his wingman did the same thing when two P-38s attacked a formation of over 50 German Fighters amassing to attack the bombers.That day, Olds bagged three and his wingman bagged two and both made it home.  You don't have to kill them, just disrupt them and turn them into a swarm.  The F-22 and the F-35 are designed to do just that without detection firing from the extreme range for the Aim-120 which has a longer range than anything the Russians (or anyone else) has.  That is forefront of every enemy pilot will have on his mind going into combat with the US.  That is quite a edge.
> 
> Now, about that KA-31.  It's an antiship missile, not an air to air missile.  Once again, your misinformation is astounding.  You can't be working for the Russians.  They just aren't that stupid.
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a good long hard look at the R-77 missile.  It comes in two flavors for the Russians and a third variant for export.  While it's better than the Aim-7, the Aim-120 flies circles around it.  The Russians (Soviets) tried to duplicate the Aim-54 which is the best of the best and  at a million bucks per copy was phased out right after the Soviets started to turn out the Aim-54 copy.  The R-77 never came close to competing with the Phoenix even though it looks like a copy.
> 
> So far, you have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You may wish to fire up that Borche and gum that for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person with the misinformation is you.  The engines are 5th gen, period.  The radar is a advanced AESA system that is the equivalent of our best.  They no doubt stole it from us but the facts are that your information is crap.  The link below has the best info on the aircraft.  Yes, I highlighted the wrong missile, sue me, I was in a hurry and was relying on an admittedly faulty memory.  However, your completely false info on the PAK-FA is simply ridiculous.  You have to stop using wiki for your info.
> 
> 
> "Russia’s new T-50-variant Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (PAK FA) may feature the most accurate air-to-air missile system ever devised. The new system specifically targets the ability of skilled fighter pilots to engage in violent maneuvers to break missile locks in older-generation technology, based on a radar system held within the nose of the missile.
> 
> The new missile, pegged the K-77M, was described by _Russia Today _as an “absolute killer.” It notes that what sets the K-77M’s technology apart from its counterparts is the implementation of a “active phased array antenna (APAA)” which essentially solves the lock-on problem by addressing the radar’s “field of view” problem.  Previously, this limitation allowed pilots to swing their jets out of the range of a tailing guided missile when in close proximity, evading the scope of the radar’s view. The K-77M essentially implements a solution similar to the Raytheon’s Patriot surface-to-air (SAM) missile system, according to _Russia Today_.
> New Russian Air-to-Air Missiles Will Field Almost Perfect Accuracy The Diplomat"
> 
> 
> The PAK-FA News Pics Debate Thread XXIV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going to play fair (well the way you think).  It's time to bring in the Indians accessment of the Pak 5th gen fighter.  Read?  Sorry to bust your bubble but I won't be using the propaganda site you are using.  Russia Today is solely owned by the Russian Government.  Well, here goes.
> 
> Let's start out with a nice article.
> India to invest 25 billion in FGFA project Russia India Report
> The engine isn't ready and the first batch in 2016 or test purposes will have an interim engine belonging to the SU-27.  NO Supercruise.  The Avionics are on the drawing board and not ready for production until the future (if at all).  The only thing ready is the airframe which can't do the 5gen.  It's more a 4.5 gen.
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/50530/analysis-india-faces-crunch-decision-over-rafale-pak-fa
> 
> Here is a quote from Janes.
> 
> ""f you put your resources into the T-50, then the IAF becomes an almost all-Russian fleet, and you are betting your future force structure on an aeroplane that is almost solely on paper at present. If you decide to go with the Rafale, then you are forgetting about having a fifth-generation aeroplane, but at least you know everything on this platform exists and works pretty much as advertised," he added."
> 
> Mostly on paper.  The Russians are flying the few demonstrators on an interim engine because they still can't get the supercruise engine to work.  They are using much of the equipment from the SU-27 which is gen4 at best unless they actually do what they promise on paper.  The Russians claim that it will be going into service in 2016.  I don't see how.  The Engine that it's supposed to get is still in the engineering stage and not in production since it's got so many problems right now.  Nothing that time won't cure.  But that time is predicted by most as more like 2025 and it might be better than the F-22 by 2025 if the F-22 and the F-35 were to stay static.  They won't, you can bet.  Plus, by 2025, the US will start fielding 6th gen fighters.  And don't even bring up the SU-35 or the Mig-35.  Both ended up being such problem children hardly anyone wants to buy them.
> 
> The reason India has gone this route is that they will NEVER get a F-22 or a US equipped F-35 for avionics and sensors.  When you buy the F-35 for export, you pretty much have to roll yer own on the avionics and sensors.  The closest country with that capability is Israel and you want to bet that Israel won't export their stuff either.  So the Indians can't get the deal they want from the F-35 so they go with the longshot for the T-50 PAK.  Even so, they are still a generation behind the US and will probably stay that way along with Russia.
> 
> Now, prove that the T-50 is better than either the F-22 and the F-35 (both flying) with the F-22 in constant upgrades from the systems constantly developing for the F-35 and the F-35 goes into service in July of this year.  That's less than 2 months.  Prove that the Paper T-50 PAK is better.   This is sort of like arguing all those VunderVeapons from Germany for late in WWII.  Sure saved them, didn't it.  You run what brung you to the dance.  And right now, the only two Gen 5 Fighters are the F-22 and the F-35.  And the Military and Industry is pretty well tight lipped on both of those.  Better for your enemy to think they are less than they really are.
> 
> When any Aircraft from other Countries do mock battles, both sides cripple their aircraft so you won't know the other sides capability.  The Rafale or a few others just might win that battle but to find out how the F-22 really is in battle, you have to do actually deadly combat against it.  Right now, the F-15 can pretty well hold it's own against the so called Gen 4.5 fighters since it's been upgraded to that level already.  It's been proven in battle already that the F-15 can out turn a Mig-29 which no one admitted to until it did it.  The Mig-29 pilot was very experienced avoiding the BVR, closing on the F-15 and the fight went into an old style dogfight.  It wasn't the gun that bagged the Mig-29, it was the plain jane Aim9.
> 
> The only way you can be truly sure is by pitting the T--50 PAK against the F-22/F-35 in battle and the Russians are a decade away from having it ready.  Until then, the best it can do is a Gen 4.5+ and that just ain't good enough anymore.
Click to expand...








I never claimed the PAK-FA was better than the F-22.  Far, FAR from it.  The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world and will remain so for decades.  It is ridiculous that we have abandoned production on that aircraft in favor of the F-35.  

My point is this is no longer WWII technology where you could adapt a single airframe to a multitude of roles such as the Mosquito, or the P-38.  Today, when you try and make an airframe able to do all things, it does none of them as well as a dedicated airframe.  I actually had an opportunity to talk to one of the test pilots of the F-35 at this last Tailhook, and while his answers were necessarily vague as regards performance, some things did become apparent. 

It will not ever be able to do as good a job in the CAS role as the current A-10.  

It can't compete with the F-22 in the air superiority role. 

It can definitely replace the AV-8B (and is superior to it in all categories) but at the cost per unit I would rather have an upgraded version of that aircraft, and in much larger numbers.

The reason why India won't be getting a F-35 is for the cost of a single airframe they can produce a whole squadron of aircraft, and don't sell the Indians short.  Their technological capabilities are advancing exceptionally quickly.  In fact they are probably going to be the next player in the armed UAV game.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bird flying fat dumb and happy sure ain't going to be the agressor.  Now you are trying to force the US Fighters to get sucked into the strong points of the enemy.  We stopped doing that by the end of Vietnam.  It's not going to be a gunfight in the opening rounds.  It's going to be an Aim-120 game with the other side getting blooded first.  How bad it's hard to tell because, unlike you, my crystal ball is at the cleaners.  AFter the good stuff is spent by both sides, it's going to be back to the Gen 3 and 4 Aircraft and at that point, the best Gen 4 is still the F-15.  I learned that during a Wargame when all the good stuff (at that time the F-15 was used up along with the F-4, F-14 and the F-16.  The other side didn't fare any better.  Both sides ended up with Attack AC being used as fighters.  And the A-10 didn't dare cross the english channel due to the SU7 waiting for it.  The A-7 and A-4 was still around.  The older Attack birds won by just being more numerous on both sides.
> 
> You have no idea on the deaths of both sides in their shiny new fighters.  Keep it up much longer and we will be throwing rocks at each other.
Click to expand...








Yes, this is the first post of yours that I agree with completely.  Numbers MATTER!  The high tech aircraft will indeed rule the roost so long as they are operational, but, they breakdown far more frequently than their simpler counterparts.  It's great having the 200 best aircraft in the world.  It truly is.  But, like the Germans found out with their 3,000 best tanks in the world, being buried under 100,000 tanks of lesser quality, is still being buried.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bird flying fat dumb and happy sure ain't going to be the agressor.  Now you are trying to force the US Fighters to get sucked into the strong points of the enemy.  We stopped doing that by the end of Vietnam.  It's not going to be a gunfight in the opening rounds.  It's going to be an Aim-120 game with the other side getting blooded first.  How bad it's hard to tell because, unlike you, my crystal ball is at the cleaners.  AFter the good stuff is spent by both sides, it's going to be back to the Gen 3 and 4 Aircraft and at that point, the best Gen 4 is still the F-15.  I learned that during a Wargame when all the good stuff (at that time the F-15 was used up along with the F-4, F-14 and the F-16.  The other side didn't fare any better.  Both sides ended up with Attack AC being used as fighters.  And the A-10 didn't dare cross the english channel due to the SU7 waiting for it.  The A-7 and A-4 was still around.  The older Attack birds won by just being more numerous on both sides.
> 
> You have no idea on the deaths of both sides in their shiny new fighters.  Keep it up much longer and we will be throwing rocks at each other.
Click to expand...

Obviously you need to go back from the beginning of the thread cause your bs has been addressed multiple times


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bird flying fat dumb and happy sure ain't going to be the agressor.  Now you are trying to force the US Fighters to get sucked into the strong points of the enemy.  We stopped doing that by the end of Vietnam.  It's not going to be a gunfight in the opening rounds.  It's going to be an Aim-120 game with the other side getting blooded first.  How bad it's hard to tell because, unlike you, my crystal ball is at the cleaners.  AFter the good stuff is spent by both sides, it's going to be back to the Gen 3 and 4 Aircraft and at that point, the best Gen 4 is still the F-15.  I learned that during a Wargame when all the good stuff (at that time the F-15 was used up along with the F-4, F-14 and the F-16.  The other side didn't fare any better.  Both sides ended up with Attack AC being used as fighters.  And the A-10 didn't dare cross the english channel due to the SU7 waiting for it.  The A-7 and A-4 was still around.  The older Attack birds won by just being more numerous on both sides.
> 
> You have no idea on the deaths of both sides in their shiny new fighters.  Keep it up much longer and we will be throwing rocks at each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you need to go back from the beginning of the thread cause your bs has been addressed multiple times
Click to expand...


I am sure that you need to hear what the Russians turned out about the T-50.  It's interesting as all get out.  Just click on the link below.
*All about Russia's Newest Advanced Stealth Fighter - Documentary*

The tell of the first real airframe (without the proper engines and devoid of most of the avionics)  flew in 2009.  You talk about the F-35 trying to do it all.  Well, watch that documentary and see another bird that is being designed to replace the Mig-29, all the Su-3X series and even the ground attack birds.  The Russians are so tight over funding that they have no choice but to put it all in one basket and even to con India into helping.  Right now, it's the boondoggle that is having the same problems the F-35 has had in the past.  The difference is, the F-35 goes operational in less than 1 month.  And it CAN do it all.  I look for the T-50 to go into production in the year 2025 or thereabouts.  It was 20 years behind the F-22 so do the math.  20 years from the time it was first started.  It started around 2003 so add 20 years to that.  So the earliest would be 2023 but 2025 is a more likely time.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bird flying fat dumb and happy sure ain't going to be the agressor.  Now you are trying to force the US Fighters to get sucked into the strong points of the enemy.  We stopped doing that by the end of Vietnam.  It's not going to be a gunfight in the opening rounds.  It's going to be an Aim-120 game with the other side getting blooded first.  How bad it's hard to tell because, unlike you, my crystal ball is at the cleaners.  AFter the good stuff is spent by both sides, it's going to be back to the Gen 3 and 4 Aircraft and at that point, the best Gen 4 is still the F-15.  I learned that during a Wargame when all the good stuff (at that time the F-15 was used up along with the F-4, F-14 and the F-16.  The other side didn't fare any better.  Both sides ended up with Attack AC being used as fighters.  And the A-10 didn't dare cross the english channel due to the SU7 waiting for it.  The A-7 and A-4 was still around.  The older Attack birds won by just being more numerous on both sides.
> 
> You have no idea on the deaths of both sides in their shiny new fighters.  Keep it up much longer and we will be throwing rocks at each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you need to go back from the beginning of the thread cause your bs has been addressed multiple times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that you need to hear what the Russians turned out about the T-50.  It's interesting as all get out.  Just click on the link below.
> *All about Russia's Newest Advanced Stealth Fighter - Documentary*
> 
> The tell of the first real airframe (without the proper engines and devoid of most of the avionics)  flew in 2009.  You talk about the F-35 trying to do it all.  Well, watch that documentary and see another bird that is being designed to replace the Mig-29, all the Su-3X series and even the ground attack birds.  The Russians are so tight over funding that they have no choice but to put it all in one basket and even to con India into helping.  Right now, it's the boondoggle that is having the same problems the F-35 has had in the past.  The difference is, the F-35 goes operational in less than 1 month.  And it CAN do it all.  I look for the T-50 to go into production in the year 2025 or thereabouts.  It was 20 years behind the F-22 so do the math.  20 years from the time it was first started.  It started around 2003 so add 20 years to that.  So the earliest would be 2023 but 2025 is a more likely time.
Click to expand...


It sure got quiet all of a sudden.  I guess he doesn't like the Russian facts by the Russians brought into play.  The F-22 didn't break the Russian bank, the F-35 has.  I am sure he is a Reagan fan.  It's right out of Reagan's Starwars playbook.


----------



## vegas

*


westwall said:



			I never claimed the PAK-FA was better than the F-22.  Far, FAR from it.  The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world and will remain so for decades.  It is ridiculous that we have abandoned production on that aircraft in favor of the F-35. 

My point is this is no longer WWII technology where you could adapt a single airframe to a multitude of roles such as the Mosquito, or the P-38.  Today, when you try and make an airframe able to do all things, it does none of them as well as a dedicated airframe.  I actually had an opportunity to talk to one of the test pilots of the F-35 at this last Tailhook, and while his answers were necessarily vague as regards performance, some things did become apparent.
		
Click to expand...

*Actually, we have been adapting a single airframe/aircraft to a multitude of roles.

The F-15 was originally intended for air-air and now we have the E Strike Eagle version. Same with the F-16. Same with the F-4. Even the Navy's Tomcat tried to be the 'Bombcat' and it turned out to have potential. In short, just about every fighter platform we had, we tried to see how far we can make that platform do more than just one role. We wanted jacks-of-all-trades and very few masters-of-one.
*


westwall said:



			It will not ever be able to do as good a job in the CAS role as the current A-10.  

It can't compete with the F-22 in the air superiority role. 

It can definitely replace the AV-8B (and is superior to it in all categories) but at the cost per unit I would rather have an upgraded version of that aircraft, and in much larger numbers.
		
Click to expand...

*Continuing what I said above, instead of making a completed design do multi-role multi-missions after the fact, the F-35 was designed from paper to BE multi-role multi-missions capable.

Take a look at the 'old' Navy, for example. With the 'old' Navy, a carrier would sail with up to six platforms: F-14, F-18, A-6, Hawkeye, Viking, and helos. With the 'new' Navy, there is the F-18, Hawkeye, and helos. One does not need to be a logistics or HR expert to see the differences. Even with our national wealth and military budget, we cannot afford the 'old' Navy and the Navy knew it.

Again, we have always tried to make as many jacks-of-all-trades as possible, and very few masters-of-one. So the issue is about raising the bar of those trades and that is what the F-35 is supposed to do. Precision munitions give us the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) and eventually there will be smaller and more accurate bombs, which will give the F-35 the same punch as the F-15 Strike Eagle in situations where low RCS is less important. The A-10 is in a class by itself in CAS the same way the SR-71 is in recon, so there is no legitimate comparison here. Maybe we can make an institutional change to allow the Army the authority to fly fixed wings and give the A-10 to the Army, if the Army wanted it.

The F-35 is not supposed to compete against the F-22 in air superiority but if we can raise the bar of air superiority a little bit higher for a multi-roles multi-missions platform, we can do it with the F-35 in situations where the F-22 is not available, such as our allies who cannot afford to develop their own versions of the F-22.

An upgraded Harrier ? How extensive of an upgrade before we might as well design a 'Harrier II' ? And how much would this 'Harrier II' be in terms of program development and per unit cost ? Fly-by-wire flight control is pretty much the norm today so we can expect this 'Harrier II' to have one. The weight savings over a mechanical-hydraulics FCS is definite but that does not equate to being less expensive. We will need a new engine. This 'Harrier II' will need a better radar as well. How far should we go ?

Like it or not, the F-35 is inevitable, maybe not in this version, but a jack-of-all-trades from scratch is inevitable.


----------



## vegas

westwall said:


> The radar is a advanced AESA system that is the equivalent of our best.


Not likely.

Russia's entry into AESA is recent. Before that, they were fielding the passive ESA technology. But even if the Russians managed to steal American AESA technology, that does not mean they can manufacture the components to the same miniaturization and quality level.

Not only that, there is the software side of it.

The main advantage the AESA system have over the PESA system is that the AESA system offers true multi-modes multi-operations capability. Everything else, from PESA to the planar to the classical concave dish, have only pseudo multi-modes capability.

With the AESA system, the main array can be virtually divided into several smaller arrays and each sub-array can perform its own beam shaping and create unique pulse characteristics for true multiple modes operations. Volume search should have different pulse characteristics than track, which should have different pulse characteristics than boresight. The entire process falls under (keyword search) sub-array partitioning and choreography software.

Looking Inside Scanned-Array Radar Signal Processing


> ...allows the radar to do things that are physically impossible with a conventional antenna, such as changing the beam direction instantaneously, having multiple antenna patterns for transmitting and receiving simultaneously, or even subdividing the array into multiple antenna arrays and performing multiple functions—say, searching for targets, tracking a target, and following terrain—simultaneously.


So while the Russians may have the base AESA technology, whether indigenous or stolen or both, inferior quality manufacturing will render any software sophistication inapplicable.

Keep in mind that there was once the military aviation boogie-man was the MIG-25 that got the Americans all nervous, especially when it was claimed that that Foxbat's radar was so powerful that it could achieve burn-through against ECM. Then when we finally got our hands on the Foxbat via the defection of Viktor Belenko to Japan, we found out the Foxbat radar was basically junk. Yes, it was powerful enough to achieve burn-through, but the overall system was so poorly designed that it could offer its pilot only target general location, not airspeed, altitude, and heading. It was up to the pilot to monitor the scope to see the target representation moving from sweep to sweep to know the target is moving.

The Russians maybe good or even great aerodynamicists, but when it comes to avionics, they are still at least one generation behind US.


----------



## westwall

vegas said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The radar is a advanced AESA system that is the equivalent of our best.
> 
> 
> 
> Not likely.
> 
> Russia's entry into AESA is recent. Before that, they were fielding the passive ESA technology. But even if the Russians managed to steal American AESA technology, that does not mean they can manufacture the components to the same miniaturization and quality level.
> 
> Not only that, there is the software side of it.
> 
> The main advantage the AESA system have over the PESA system is that the AESA system offers true multi-modes multi-operations capability. Everything else, from PESA to the planar to the classical concave dish, have only pseudo multi-modes capability.
> 
> With the AESA system, the main array can be virtually divided into several smaller arrays and each sub-array can perform its own beam shaping and create unique pulse characteristics for true multiple modes operations. Volume search should have different pulse characteristics than track, which should have different pulse characteristics than boresight. The entire process falls under (keyword search) sub-array partitioning and choreography software.
> 
> Looking Inside Scanned-Array Radar Signal Processing
> 
> 
> 
> ...allows the radar to do things that are physically impossible with a conventional antenna, such as changing the beam direction instantaneously, having multiple antenna patterns for transmitting and receiving simultaneously, or even subdividing the array into multiple antenna arrays and performing multiple functions—say, searching for targets, tracking a target, and following terrain—simultaneously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So while the Russians may have the base AESA technology, whether indigenous or stolen or both, inferior quality manufacturing will render any software sophistication inapplicable.
> 
> Keep in mind that there was once the military aviation boogie-man was the MIG-25 that got the Americans all nervous, especially when it was claimed that that Foxbat's radar was so powerful that it could achieve burn-through against ECM. Then when we finally got our hands on the Foxbat via the defection of Viktor Belenko to Japan, we found out the Foxbat radar was basically junk. Yes, it was powerful enough to achieve burn-through, but the overall system was so poorly designed that it could offer its pilot only target general location, not airspeed, altitude, and heading. It was up to the pilot to monitor the scope to see the target representation moving from sweep to sweep to know the target is moving.
> 
> The Russians maybe good or even great aerodynamicists, but when it comes to avionics, they are still at least one generation behind US.
Click to expand...






You know the tech is stolen, or the Clintons gave it to them years ago, however they got it, they have the advantage that they didn't have to spend time developing it.  I'll grant you it's not as good as our best, but it's better than any of the rest of the worlds.  One generation?  I don't think so.  I think they are probably 10 years max behind us.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report 
We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range. 
The F-35 Can t Beat The Plane It s Replacing In A Dogfight Report


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report
> We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.
> The F-35 Can t Beat The Plane It s Replacing In A Dogfight Report



The report that was used was where the F-35C was going against a F-16 in a toe to toe dogfight.  In that situation, there is nothing that can handle a F-16 including the F-15, F-22, Mig (anything), F-18, SU (anything).  The F-16 has trouble closing but after that, it's one hell of a fighter.  There is more than an even chance that the F-16 won't get the chance to close on the F-35.  The test was to see how it would go if the F-16 did get the close.  The Lawn Dart is one fantastic fighter for the bucks but still can't survive in a radar world of either the 5th gen or the current ground to air for very long and will be relying on the F-35 to clear the ground clutter up.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 will be dead long before F-16 and if we ever fully transition to a single fighter F-35 Airforce I would expect trouble to brew immediately since they will all know what you refuse to acknowledge....its a POS


----------



## Manonthestreet

Btw if you read F-16 was dirty configed while F-35 was clean....even more damning


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Btw if you read F-16 was dirty configed while F-35 was clean....even more damning



In the same situation, NO fighter in the world can take the lawn dart.  And you can bet that those two tanks were jettisoned just before the engagement which is standard practice.  That means, both are clean.  

There has been NO air to air combat losses on the F-16.  The losses were from ground to air attacks during ground attack runs.  There is the difference between the F-35 and the F-16.  The F-35 is almost entirely immune from such an attack.  In the Ground Attack Mode, both the F-16 and the F-35 will require pure fighter Top Caps by both the F-22 and the F-15.  In the event that this is not possible, both needs to be able to defend itself from enemy fighters.  

Right now, not even the vaunted F-22 nor the F-15 can handle a F-16 at medium to low altitude in a Visual Fight.   Go above 15,000 feet and the F-16 loses it's edge.  But below that, it's the king of the hill.  But it still can't handle the F-22 or the F-15 BVR at any altitude.  The F-35 can handle the F-15 BVR but can't handle the F-22.  Making the F-35 fight the F-16 fight at medium to low Visual Range should never happen.  Although it might happen once or twice if the F-35 pilot is not on the ball.


----------



## HenryBHough

The one feature of the overstuffed turkey that will prove of real value is the push-button that changes all instrument faces over to Arabic.  It'll make the transition so much easier.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw if you read F-16 was dirty configed while F-35 was clean....even more damning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same situation, NO fighter in the world can take the lawn dart.  And you can bet that those two tanks were jettisoned just before the engagement which is standard practice.  That means, both are clean.
> 
> There has been NO air to air combat losses on the F-16.  The losses were from ground to air attacks during ground attack runs.  There is the difference between the F-35 and the F-16.  The F-35 is almost entirely immune from such an attack.  In the Ground Attack Mode, both the F-16 and the F-35 will require pure fighter Top Caps by both the F-22 and the F-15.  In the event that this is not possible, both needs to be able to defend itself from enemy fighters.
> 
> Right now, not even the vaunted F-22 nor the F-15 can handle a F-16 at medium to low altitude in a Visual Fight.   Go above 15,000 feet and the F-16 loses it's edge.  But below that, it's the king of the hill.  But it still can't handle the F-22 or the F-15 BVR at any altitude.  The F-35 can handle the F-15 BVR but can't handle the F-22.  Making the F-35 fight the F-16 fight at medium to low Visual Range should never happen.  Although it might happen once or twice if the F-35 pilot is not on the ball.
Click to expand...

F-22 can do all sorts of tricks.....that wasnt even best F-16 mod....entry level fighter nowdays.......squirm all ya want doesnt change facts....which is just your sayso vs real pilots...gee which carries more weight.....I wonder......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

And I suppose you are REAL PILOTS with decades of experience?  I am retired AF, myself.  I do notice that your opeds are from Civilians that probably never served.  They grab anything they can and leave out the rest to support their own ideas.  Until the F-35 goes into combat, one will never know.  The F-22 is flying over Syria right now and I imagine you were just as harsh on the F-22 as you are the F-35.  And just as wrong.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> And I suppose you are REAL PILOTS with decades of experience?  I am retired AF, myself.  I do notice that your opeds are from Civilians that probably never served.  They grab anything they can and leave out the rest to support their own ideas.  Until the F-35 goes into combat, one will never know.  The F-22 is flying over Syria right now and I imagine you were just as harsh on the F-22 as you are the F-35.  And just as wrong.


Didnt read did ya......and lying about what was left out is bushleague since you CANT SUBSTANTIATE THAT EITHER


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> And I suppose you are REAL PILOTS with decades of experience?  I am retired AF, myself.  I do notice that your opeds are from Civilians that probably never served.  They grab anything they can and leave out the rest to support their own ideas.  Until the F-35 goes into combat, one will never know.  The F-22 is flying over Syria right now and I imagine you were just as harsh on the F-22 as you are the F-35.  And just as wrong.


Love the F-22...it works and has 15-1 kill ratio on f-15 instead of losing everytime to f-16


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.


----------



## HenryBHough

Daryl Hunt said:


> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.



So not subject to court martial if he writes truth other than the "authorized" truth!


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.








The only important part of the story is, is it accurate.   Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid.   Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians.  You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.


----------



## Indofred

US latest F-35 stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by F-16 from 1970s Daily Mail Online



> *U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s... despite being the most expensive weapon in history*
> 
> *The F-35 stealth jet has already cost the military more than $350billion*
> *But in a mock battle it was outperformed by an F-16 designed in the 1970s*
> *F-35 test pilot said new plane was too cumbersome to dodge enemy fire*
> *He deemed it totally inappropriate for fighting aircraft within visual range*



It's not looking good for that thing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only important part of the story is, is it accurate.   Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid.   Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians.  You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.
Click to expand...


Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking.  Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight.  Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup.  One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid.  And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid.  That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact.  The article was more about agenda than facts.  And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda.  Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky.  There were a hell of a lot of growing pains.  But it's doing duty in Syria today.  You don't hear a lot about it when it flies.  That's because it's doing what it's designed to do.  You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there.  And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it.  But the F-16 has to get there first.  When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight.  The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air.  It's all been ground to air.  Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable.  If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle.  The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well.  If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.  

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation.  One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar.  You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless.  What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in.  If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.  

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over.  If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC.  They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in.  We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore.  And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap?  By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate.  And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.  

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done.  There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22.  This puts the US on top where it needs to stay.  It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat.  The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill.  By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes.  And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it.  You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years.  Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years.  The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments.  So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one.  The Chinese are having the same problem.  And so is the EU.  

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22.  They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Here are some sour grapes for the F-35 detractors. Like it said, NO F-35s were lost in the CAS role that the A-10 and the F-16 consistently had losses.  And the article you keep referring to was from the very first test F-35 without it's electronics and early engine that had to be babied.  While it will NEVER dogfight successfully against the F-22, F-15 or the F-16, it can do the CAS role affectively without losses.  Ain't a B*** when you get proven wrong about the CAS role of the F-35.


The Aviationist F-35s played the US Army s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process


Two F-35 Lightning II took on a primary role as Close Air Support providers during GF 15-08.

For the first time, F-35s belonging to the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron played a major role during one of the 10 yearly iterations of Green Flag, an exercise conducted on the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, where more than 5,000 U.S. Army soldiers against simulated enemy forces in a 14-day long pre-deployment trial by fire.

Although the JSF has sporadically taken part in past Green Flag drills in the past, this was the very first time the F-35 had the primary exercise role of CAS providers: the pricey stealth multi-role planes penetrated a “contested and degraded battlespace” waiting for calls for support from JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers) and liaison officers on the ground.

According to the Air Force, the F-35s did the job effectively “just like those that came before it,” a comment that seems to suggest that F-35 is already as capable as the an A-10 or an F-16 in the CAS role, at least in the type of support with Troops in Contact required during a Green Flag exercise.

“The roles played by the two operational test fighters seem relatively modest when examined within the immense scale of a National Training Center rotation. Fourteen days of maneuvering against adversaries in vast desert mountain ranges makes Green Flag a test of the mind and body alike. But when help from the air was called upon, F-35 pilots from the 31st TES communicated and used their systems with precision. They created strategic effects that left troops on the ground largely unaware and unconcerned of what airframe they might be using — seamless integration at its finest,” says the release by the 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs.

There is a widespread concern that the pricey, troubled multirole F-35 will not be as effective as an A-10 Thunderbolt II or any of the other aircraft the JSF is about to replace but the Air Force seems to be enthusiastic about its new combat plane, especially in the much debated CAS role.

According to AW&ST the Lightning IIs achieved an important result during GF 15-08: not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.

On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display).

The debate between F-35 supporters and critics was made more harsh by a brief obtained by War Is Boring, according to which the JSF was outclassed by a two-seat F-16D Block 40 (one of the aircraft the U.S. Air Force intends to replace with the Lightning II) in mock aerial combat.

Although we have already debunked some theories about the alleged capabilities of all the F-35 variants to match or considerably exceed the maneuvering performance of every fourth-generation fighter, to such an extent we already highlighted that there is no way a JSF will ever match (for instance) a Eurofighter Typhoon in aerial combat, it must be remembered that the simulated dogfight mentioned in the unclassified report obtained by WIB involved one of the very first test aircraft: the AF-02 is quite a basic JSF that lacks a mission systems software to use all the onboard sensors, does not have the special stealth coating that makes it virtually invisible to radars and it implemented an obsolete software code full of limitations.

This does not mean the F-35 will ever be as maneuverable and lethal in aerial combat as an F-22 or an F-16, but it will probably perform a bit better than AF-02 did during its simulated dogfight against the F-16D Block 40.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only important part of the story is, is it accurate.   Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid.   Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians.  You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking.  Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight.  Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup.  One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid.  And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid.  That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact.  The article was more about agenda than facts.  And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.
> 
> There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda.  Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky.  There were a hell of a lot of growing pains.  But it's doing duty in Syria today.  You don't hear a lot about it when it flies.  That's because it's doing what it's designed to do.  You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there.  And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it.  But the F-16 has to get there first.  When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight.  The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.
> 
> The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air.  It's all been ground to air.  Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable.  If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle.  The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well.  If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.
> 
> The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation.  One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar.  You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless.  What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in.  If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.
> 
> The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over.  If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC.  They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in.  We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore.  And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap?  By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate.  And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.
> 
> The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done.  There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22.  This puts the US on top where it needs to stay.  It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat.  The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill.  By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes.  And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it.  You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years.  Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years.  The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments.  So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.
> 
> The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one.  The Chinese are having the same problem.  And so is the EU.
> 
> The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22.  They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.
Click to expand...









The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault.  Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range.  No doubt about it.  However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous.  In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only important part of the story is, is it accurate.   Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid.   Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians.  You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking.  Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight.  Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup.  One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid.  And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid.  That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact.  The article was more about agenda than facts.  And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.
> 
> There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda.  Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky.  There were a hell of a lot of growing pains.  But it's doing duty in Syria today.  You don't hear a lot about it when it flies.  That's because it's doing what it's designed to do.  You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there.  And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it.  But the F-16 has to get there first.  When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight.  The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.
> 
> The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air.  It's all been ground to air.  Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable.  If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle.  The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well.  If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.
> 
> The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation.  One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar.  You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless.  What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in.  If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.
> 
> The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over.  If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC.  They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in.  We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore.  And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap?  By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate.  And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.
> 
> The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done.  There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22.  This puts the US on top where it needs to stay.  It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat.  The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill.  By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes.  And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it.  You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years.  Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years.  The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments.  So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.
> 
> The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one.  The Chinese are having the same problem.  And so is the EU.
> 
> The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22.  They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault.  Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range.  No doubt about it.  However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous.  In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.
> 
> I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.
Click to expand...




On the best fighters, we do agree.  It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter.  While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone.  If that is the case, we ain't winnin'.  The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction.  That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine.  I imagine I have a couple or three years on you.  We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter.  The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15.  It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5.  Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5.  Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante.  The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives.  We don't anymore.  We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.  

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters.  It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings.  And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning.  And beginnings are painfully slow.  The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35.  .  It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.  

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong.  Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.  

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only important part of the story is, is it accurate.   Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid.   Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians.  You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking.  Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight.  Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup.  One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid.  And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid.  That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact.  The article was more about agenda than facts.  And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.
> 
> There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda.  Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky.  There were a hell of a lot of growing pains.  But it's doing duty in Syria today.  You don't hear a lot about it when it flies.  That's because it's doing what it's designed to do.  You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there.  And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it.  But the F-16 has to get there first.  When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight.  The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.
> 
> The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air.  It's all been ground to air.  Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable.  If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle.  The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well.  If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.
> 
> The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation.  One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar.  You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless.  What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in.  If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.
> 
> The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over.  If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC.  They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in.  We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore.  And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap?  By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate.  And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.
> 
> The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done.  There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22.  This puts the US on top where it needs to stay.  It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat.  The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill.  By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes.  And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it.  You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years.  Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years.  The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments.  So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.
> 
> The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one.  The Chinese are having the same problem.  And so is the EU.
> 
> The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22.  They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault.  Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range.  No doubt about it.  However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous.  In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.
> 
> I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the best fighters, we do agree.  It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter.  While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone.  If that is the case, we ain't winnin'.  The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction.  That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.
> 
> Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine.  I imagine I have a couple or three years on you.  We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter.  The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15.  It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5.  Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5.  Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante.  The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives.  We don't anymore.  We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.
> 
> The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters.  It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings.  And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning.  And beginnings are painfully slow.  The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35.  .  It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.
> 
> If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong.  Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.
> 
> By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.
Click to expand...







As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense.  I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc.  There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc.  That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.  

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile.  The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress.  That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before.  Don't kid yourself on that fact.  I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.  My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these.  That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance.  Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only important part of the story is, is it accurate.   Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid.   Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians.  You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking.  Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight.  Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup.  One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid.  And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid.  That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact.  The article was more about agenda than facts.  And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.
> 
> There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda.  Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky.  There were a hell of a lot of growing pains.  But it's doing duty in Syria today.  You don't hear a lot about it when it flies.  That's because it's doing what it's designed to do.  You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there.  And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it.  But the F-16 has to get there first.  When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight.  The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.
> 
> The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air.  It's all been ground to air.  Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable.  If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle.  The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well.  If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.
> 
> The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation.  One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar.  You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless.  What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in.  If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.
> 
> The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over.  If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC.  They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in.  We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore.  And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap?  By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate.  And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.
> 
> The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done.  There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22.  This puts the US on top where it needs to stay.  It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat.  The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill.  By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes.  And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it.  You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years.  Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years.  The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments.  So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.
> 
> The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one.  The Chinese are having the same problem.  And so is the EU.
> 
> The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22.  They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault.  Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range.  No doubt about it.  However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous.  In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.
> 
> I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the best fighters, we do agree.  It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter.  While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone.  If that is the case, we ain't winnin'.  The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction.  That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.
> 
> Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine.  I imagine I have a couple or three years on you.  We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter.  The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15.  It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5.  Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5.  Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante.  The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives.  We don't anymore.  We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.
> 
> The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters.  It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings.  And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning.  And beginnings are painfully slow.  The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35.  .  It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.
> 
> If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong.  Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.
> 
> By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense.  I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc.  There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc.  That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.
> 
> The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile.  The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress.  That was in 1974 or 75.
> 
> ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before.  Don't kid yourself on that fact.  I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.
> 
> The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.  My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these.  That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance.  Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.
Click to expand...


And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort.  Korea sure changed things.  

The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106.  Not much else was worth a damned.  There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105.  I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for.  It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier.   The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role.  The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.

I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes.  The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor.  The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.

Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves.  Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18.  We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff.  Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice.  The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better.  In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics.  There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault.  That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22.  And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.  

Case in point.  They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS.  They weren't seen but they were certain felt.  This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out.  Yet, there were no losses for the F-35.  The term ICUUCMe comes into play.  All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you.  The F-35A is already able to hand CAS.  But you can't see it when it does it.  The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft.  Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all.  You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it.  Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A .  It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses.  Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces.  And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.

AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country".  Or something like that.  

The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now.  The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil.  By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil.  There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.  

During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks.  They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting.  The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area.  There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists.  One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together.  Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds.  Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters.  All you know is that your stuff is going boom.  Makes you a very nervous person.

You talk about cost.  The F-16 is around 30mil right now.  The F-35A is right around 85 mil.  Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain.  Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.

You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two.  The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development.   What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A.  But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year.  It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model.  It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.  

The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio.  The A  model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1.  The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier.  Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version?  Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers.  The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads.  Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers.  That test has already been done and it went flawless.

After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.  

The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost.  Simple as that.  You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands.  Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.  

The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41.  And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.

Your reasons have long since turn to whining.  Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.


----------



## HenryBHough

And that lack of choice is a large part of discussions in Britain as to whether to abort the entire carrier program.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> And that lack of choice is a large part of discussions in Britain as to whether to abort the entire carrier program.



I don't see where you have any other choice but to go with it.  Argentina is firing up the rhetoric once again and will end up with some modern fighters (and maybe spend a little more time training ground support and Pilots).  Without the F-35B you can just hand over the Falklands and other places like it.  It confuses me that Britain still cares about the Falklands and hasn't turned it over to Argentina before now.  You won last time but it was an ugly win.  The next time, without the F-35B will be even uglier and you may not win.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only important part of the story is, is it accurate.   Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid.   Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians.  You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking.  Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight.  Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup.  One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid.  And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid.  That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact.  The article was more about agenda than facts.  And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.
> 
> There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda.  Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky.  There were a hell of a lot of growing pains.  But it's doing duty in Syria today.  You don't hear a lot about it when it flies.  That's because it's doing what it's designed to do.  You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there.  And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it.  But the F-16 has to get there first.  When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight.  The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.
> 
> The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air.  It's all been ground to air.  Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable.  If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle.  The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well.  If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.
> 
> The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation.  One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar.  You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless.  What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in.  If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.
> 
> The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over.  If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC.  They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in.  We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore.  And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap?  By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate.  And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.
> 
> The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done.  There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22.  This puts the US on top where it needs to stay.  It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat.  The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill.  By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes.  And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it.  You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years.  Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years.  The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments.  So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.
> 
> The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one.  The Chinese are having the same problem.  And so is the EU.
> 
> The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22.  They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault.  Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range.  No doubt about it.  However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous.  In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.
> 
> I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the best fighters, we do agree.  It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter.  While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone.  If that is the case, we ain't winnin'.  The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction.  That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.
> 
> Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine.  I imagine I have a couple or three years on you.  We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter.  The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15.  It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5.  Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5.  Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante.  The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives.  We don't anymore.  We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.
> 
> The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters.  It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings.  And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning.  And beginnings are painfully slow.  The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35.  .  It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.
> 
> If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong.  Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.
> 
> By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense.  I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc.  There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc.  That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.
> 
> The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile.  The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress.  That was in 1974 or 75.
> 
> ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before.  Don't kid yourself on that fact.  I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.
> 
> The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.  My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these.  That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance.  Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort.  Korea sure changed things.
> 
> The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106.  Not much else was worth a damned.  There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105.  I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for.  It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier.   The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role.  The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.
> 
> I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes.  The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor.  The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.
> 
> Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves.  Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18.  We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff.  Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice.  The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better.  In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics.  There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault.  That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22.  And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.
> 
> Case in point.  They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS.  They weren't seen but they were certain felt.  This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out.  Yet, there were no losses for the F-35.  The term ICUUCMe comes into play.  All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you.  The F-35A is already able to hand CAS.  But you can't see it when it does it.  The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft.  Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all.  You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it.  Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A .  It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses.  Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces.  And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.
> 
> AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country".  Or something like that.
> 
> The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now.  The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil.  By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil.  There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.
> 
> During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks.  They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting.  The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area.  There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists.  One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together.  Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds.  Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters.  All you know is that your stuff is going boom.  Makes you a very nervous person.
> 
> You talk about cost.  The F-16 is around 30mil right now.  The F-35A is right around 85 mil.  Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain.  Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.
> 
> You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two.  The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development.   What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A.  But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year.  It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model.  It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.
> 
> The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio.  The A  model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1.  The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier.  Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version?  Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers.  The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads.  Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers.  That test has already been done and it went flawless.
> 
> After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.
> 
> The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost.  Simple as that.  You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands.  Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.
> 
> The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41.  And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.
> 
> Your reasons have long since turn to whining.  Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.
Click to expand...







British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours.  End of story.  To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process.  Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting  the number that Lockheed has been giving out.  The real cost is going to be around 172 million per.   And even THAT is generous.  The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per.  Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought.  Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft.  So much for your theory that we get the best.....

"The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following.  (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

*“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014.  The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.*

To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.

None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.

The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."


How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update 


*"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."*

Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking.  Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight.  Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup.  One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid.  And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid.  That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact.  The article was more about agenda than facts.  And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.
> 
> There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda.  Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky.  There were a hell of a lot of growing pains.  But it's doing duty in Syria today.  You don't hear a lot about it when it flies.  That's because it's doing what it's designed to do.  You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there.  And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it.  But the F-16 has to get there first.  When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight.  The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.
> 
> The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air.  It's all been ground to air.  Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable.  If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle.  The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well.  If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.
> 
> The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation.  One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar.  You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless.  What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in.  If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.
> 
> The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over.  If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC.  They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in.  We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore.  And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap?  By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate.  And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.
> 
> The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done.  There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22.  This puts the US on top where it needs to stay.  It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat.  The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill.  By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes.  And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it.  You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years.  Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years.  The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments.  So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.
> 
> The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one.  The Chinese are having the same problem.  And so is the EU.
> 
> The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22.  They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault.  Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range.  No doubt about it.  However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous.  In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.
> 
> I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the best fighters, we do agree.  It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter.  While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone.  If that is the case, we ain't winnin'.  The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction.  That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.
> 
> Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine.  I imagine I have a couple or three years on you.  We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter.  The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15.  It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5.  Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5.  Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante.  The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives.  We don't anymore.  We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.
> 
> The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters.  It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings.  And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning.  And beginnings are painfully slow.  The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35.  .  It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.
> 
> If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong.  Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.
> 
> By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense.  I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc.  There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc.  That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.
> 
> The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile.  The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress.  That was in 1974 or 75.
> 
> ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before.  Don't kid yourself on that fact.  I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.
> 
> The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.  My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these.  That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance.  Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort.  Korea sure changed things.
> 
> The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106.  Not much else was worth a damned.  There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105.  I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for.  It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier.   The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role.  The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.
> 
> I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes.  The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor.  The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.
> 
> Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves.  Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18.  We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff.  Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice.  The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better.  In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics.  There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault.  That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22.  And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.
> 
> Case in point.  They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS.  They weren't seen but they were certain felt.  This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out.  Yet, there were no losses for the F-35.  The term ICUUCMe comes into play.  All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you.  The F-35A is already able to hand CAS.  But you can't see it when it does it.  The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft.  Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all.  You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it.  Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A .  It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses.  Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces.  And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.
> 
> AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country".  Or something like that.
> 
> The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now.  The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil.  By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil.  There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.
> 
> During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks.  They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting.  The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area.  There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists.  One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together.  Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds.  Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters.  All you know is that your stuff is going boom.  Makes you a very nervous person.
> 
> You talk about cost.  The F-16 is around 30mil right now.  The F-35A is right around 85 mil.  Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain.  Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.
> 
> You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two.  The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development.   What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A.  But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year.  It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model.  It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.
> 
> The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio.  The A  model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1.  The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier.  Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version?  Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers.  The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads.  Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers.  That test has already been done and it went flawless.
> 
> After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.
> 
> The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost.  Simple as that.  You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands.  Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.
> 
> The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41.  And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.
> 
> Your reasons have long since turn to whining.  Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours.  End of story.  To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process.  Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting  the number that Lockheed has been giving out.  The real cost is going to be around 172 million per.   And even THAT is generous.  The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per.  Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought.  Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft.  So much for your theory that we get the best.....
> 
> "The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following.  (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)
> 
> *“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014.  The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.*
> 
> To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.
> 
> None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.
> 
> The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."
> 
> 
> How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update
> 
> 
> *"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."*
> 
> Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters
Click to expand...


From your own Cite:  As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software.  And they limited the weapons to be used.  Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart.  Let's face it, they broke the plane.

Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird.  But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight.  What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American.  It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US.  About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export.  Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.  

Again, from your own cites:  Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35.  They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer.  Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120.  Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons.  They aren't exporting the source code.  You have to roll your own.  And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.

You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault.  Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range.  No doubt about it.  However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous.  In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.
> 
> I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the best fighters, we do agree.  It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter.  While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone.  If that is the case, we ain't winnin'.  The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction.  That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.
> 
> Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine.  I imagine I have a couple or three years on you.  We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter.  The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15.  It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5.  Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5.  Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante.  The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives.  We don't anymore.  We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.
> 
> The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters.  It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings.  And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning.  And beginnings are painfully slow.  The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35.  .  It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.
> 
> If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong.  Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.
> 
> By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense.  I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc.  There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc.  That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.
> 
> The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile.  The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress.  That was in 1974 or 75.
> 
> ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before.  Don't kid yourself on that fact.  I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.
> 
> The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.  My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these.  That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance.  Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort.  Korea sure changed things.
> 
> The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106.  Not much else was worth a damned.  There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105.  I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for.  It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier.   The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role.  The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.
> 
> I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes.  The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor.  The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.
> 
> Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves.  Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18.  We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff.  Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice.  The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better.  In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics.  There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault.  That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22.  And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.
> 
> Case in point.  They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS.  They weren't seen but they were certain felt.  This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out.  Yet, there were no losses for the F-35.  The term ICUUCMe comes into play.  All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you.  The F-35A is already able to hand CAS.  But you can't see it when it does it.  The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft.  Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all.  You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it.  Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A .  It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses.  Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces.  And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.
> 
> AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country".  Or something like that.
> 
> The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now.  The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil.  By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil.  There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.
> 
> During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks.  They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting.  The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area.  There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists.  One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together.  Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds.  Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters.  All you know is that your stuff is going boom.  Makes you a very nervous person.
> 
> You talk about cost.  The F-16 is around 30mil right now.  The F-35A is right around 85 mil.  Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain.  Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.
> 
> You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two.  The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development.   What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A.  But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year.  It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model.  It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.
> 
> The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio.  The A  model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1.  The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier.  Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version?  Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers.  The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads.  Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers.  That test has already been done and it went flawless.
> 
> After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.
> 
> The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost.  Simple as that.  You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands.  Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.
> 
> The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41.  And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.
> 
> Your reasons have long since turn to whining.  Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours.  End of story.  To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process.  Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting  the number that Lockheed has been giving out.  The real cost is going to be around 172 million per.   And even THAT is generous.  The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per.  Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought.  Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft.  So much for your theory that we get the best.....
> 
> "The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following.  (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)
> 
> *“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014.  The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.*
> 
> To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.
> 
> None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.
> 
> The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."
> 
> 
> How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update
> 
> 
> *"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."*
> 
> Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own Cite:  As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.
> 
> Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software.  And they limited the weapons to be used.  Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart.  Let's face it, they broke the plane.
> 
> Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird.  But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight.  What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American.  It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US.  About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export.  Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.
> 
> Again, from your own cites:  Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35.  They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer.  Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120.  Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons.  They aren't exporting the source code.  You have to roll your own.  And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.
> 
> You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.
Click to expand...








Do you really believe that crapola?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the best fighters, we do agree.  It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter.  While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone.  If that is the case, we ain't winnin'.  The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction.  That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.
> 
> Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine.  I imagine I have a couple or three years on you.  We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter.  The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15.  It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5.  Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5.  Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante.  The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives.  We don't anymore.  We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.
> 
> The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters.  It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings.  And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning.  And beginnings are painfully slow.  The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35.  .  It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.
> 
> If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong.  Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.
> 
> By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense.  I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc.  There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc.  That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.
> 
> The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile.  The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress.  That was in 1974 or 75.
> 
> ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before.  Don't kid yourself on that fact.  I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.
> 
> The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.  My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these.  That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance.  Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort.  Korea sure changed things.
> 
> The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106.  Not much else was worth a damned.  There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105.  I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for.  It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier.   The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role.  The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.
> 
> I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes.  The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor.  The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.
> 
> Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves.  Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18.  We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff.  Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice.  The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better.  In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics.  There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault.  That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22.  And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.
> 
> Case in point.  They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS.  They weren't seen but they were certain felt.  This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out.  Yet, there were no losses for the F-35.  The term ICUUCMe comes into play.  All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you.  The F-35A is already able to hand CAS.  But you can't see it when it does it.  The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft.  Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all.  You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it.  Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A .  It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses.  Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces.  And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.
> 
> AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country".  Or something like that.
> 
> The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now.  The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil.  By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil.  There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.
> 
> During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks.  They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting.  The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area.  There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists.  One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together.  Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds.  Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters.  All you know is that your stuff is going boom.  Makes you a very nervous person.
> 
> You talk about cost.  The F-16 is around 30mil right now.  The F-35A is right around 85 mil.  Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain.  Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.
> 
> You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two.  The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development.   What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A.  But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year.  It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model.  It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.
> 
> The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio.  The A  model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1.  The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier.  Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version?  Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers.  The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads.  Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers.  That test has already been done and it went flawless.
> 
> After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.
> 
> The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost.  Simple as that.  You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands.  Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.
> 
> The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41.  And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.
> 
> Your reasons have long since turn to whining.  Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours.  End of story.  To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process.  Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting  the number that Lockheed has been giving out.  The real cost is going to be around 172 million per.   And even THAT is generous.  The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per.  Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought.  Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft.  So much for your theory that we get the best.....
> 
> "The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following.  (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)
> 
> *“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014.  The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.*
> 
> To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.
> 
> None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.
> 
> The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."
> 
> 
> How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update
> 
> 
> *"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."*
> 
> Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own Cite:  As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.
> 
> Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software.  And they limited the weapons to be used.  Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart.  Let's face it, they broke the plane.
> 
> Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird.  But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight.  What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American.  It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US.  About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export.  Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.
> 
> Again, from your own cites:  Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35.  They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer.  Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120.  Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons.  They aren't exporting the source code.  You have to roll your own.  And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.
> 
> You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that crapola?
Click to expand...


You want a bit of Cheeze to go with that whine?


----------



## HenryBHough

One share of Lockheed stock apparently is sufficient to cause diarrhea of the keyboard.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> One share of Lockheed stock apparently is sufficient to cause diarrhea of the keyboard.



You must own thousands of shares then.  No wonder you are so worried.  Once again, Lockheed has placed all it's eggs in one basket.  Kelly would be proud.


----------



## HenryBHough

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> wooossshhhhhhh!
> 
> And that was no F35.



You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense.  I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc.  There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc.  That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.
> 
> The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile.  The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress.  That was in 1974 or 75.
> 
> ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before.  Don't kid yourself on that fact.  I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.
> 
> The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish.  My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these.  That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance.  Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort.  Korea sure changed things.
> 
> The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106.  Not much else was worth a damned.  There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105.  I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for.  It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier.   The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role.  The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.
> 
> I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes.  The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor.  The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.
> 
> Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves.  Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18.  We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff.  Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice.  The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better.  In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics.  There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault.  That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22.  And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.
> 
> Case in point.  They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS.  They weren't seen but they were certain felt.  This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out.  Yet, there were no losses for the F-35.  The term ICUUCMe comes into play.  All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you.  The F-35A is already able to hand CAS.  But you can't see it when it does it.  The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft.  Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all.  You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it.  Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A .  It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses.  Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces.  And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.
> 
> AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country".  Or something like that.
> 
> The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now.  The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil.  By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil.  There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.
> 
> During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks.  They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting.  The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area.  There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists.  One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together.  Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds.  Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters.  All you know is that your stuff is going boom.  Makes you a very nervous person.
> 
> You talk about cost.  The F-16 is around 30mil right now.  The F-35A is right around 85 mil.  Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain.  Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.
> 
> You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two.  The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development.   What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A.  But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year.  It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model.  It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.
> 
> The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio.  The A  model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1.  The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier.  Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version?  Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers.  The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads.  Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers.  That test has already been done and it went flawless.
> 
> After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.
> 
> The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost.  Simple as that.  You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands.  Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.
> 
> The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41.  And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.
> 
> Your reasons have long since turn to whining.  Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours.  End of story.  To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process.  Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting  the number that Lockheed has been giving out.  The real cost is going to be around 172 million per.   And even THAT is generous.  The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per.  Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought.  Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft.  So much for your theory that we get the best.....
> 
> "The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following.  (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)
> 
> *“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014.  The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.*
> 
> To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.
> 
> None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.
> 
> The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."
> 
> 
> How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update
> 
> 
> *"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."*
> 
> Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own Cite:  As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.
> 
> Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software.  And they limited the weapons to be used.  Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart.  Let's face it, they broke the plane.
> 
> Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird.  But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight.  What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American.  It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US.  About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export.  Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.
> 
> Again, from your own cites:  Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35.  They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer.  Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120.  Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons.  They aren't exporting the source code.  You have to roll your own.  And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.
> 
> You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that crapola?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a bit of Cheeze to go with that whine?
Click to expand...








What whine is that?  Your claim for how much the F-35 is going to cost is simply ridiculous, the claim that the F-35 that we get will somehow be better than the one the British get even though they are providing the avionics for it is likewise ridiculous, and your claim that the US F-16s (which are Block 50-52 for the most part) are somehow magically superior to the Block 60-62 that the UAE is receiving is likewise ridiculous.

Your argument basically breaks down to "I am using the sources that best suit my POV and if you don't you're "whining".  You sound like my 9 year old daughter.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> wooossshhhhhhh!
> 
> And that was no F35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
Click to expand...








It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> wooossshhhhhhh!
> 
> And that was no F35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?
Click to expand...


This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.

USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> wooossshhhhhhh!
> 
> And that was no F35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
Click to expand...







You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.


F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week


----------



## HenryBHough

Daryl Hunt said:


> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?



Why go to the expense of having landing gear?

Catapult launch, secure in the knowledge that they won't be coming back.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> wooossshhhhhhh!
> 
> And that was no F35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.
> 
> 
> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week
Click to expand...


Sorry to bring in facts.  They do get in your way and should always be ignored.

As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb.  Then you want to cancel the replacement AC.  Well, shoddy work is shoddy work.  They need to get that flight deck usable.  Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why go to the expense of having landing gear?
> 
> Catapult launch, secure in the knowledge that they won't be coming back.
Click to expand...


Wow, another cost savings, right?  Just get rid of all the carriers while you are at it.  There are some that keep hammering about that as well.  The entire USN should only have row boats.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> wooossshhhhhhh!
> 
> And that was no F35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.
> 
> 
> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to bring in facts.  They do get in your way and should always be ignored.
> 
> As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb.  Then you want to cancel the replacement AC.  Well, shoddy work is shoddy work.  They need to get that flight deck usable.  Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.
Click to expand...







You mean like we're doing already?  The Airfarce brass is all alike.  They think they can win battles by bombing people.  That hasn't worked yet.  You need boots on the ground to win a fight.  Those boots on the ground need a aircraft with a huge bomb load, and the loiter time to stick around for a while.  We need a COIN aircraft and the Airfarce brass are buying a weapon system for a non existent opponent.

It's kind of like the Navy's new Littoral Combat Vessels.  Designed to go in close and are all radar canceling but the good old Mark I eye ball can see them just fine.  I remember when the Argentinians sailed one of their destroyers into the harbor at South Georgia Island and the Royal Marines knocked it out in seconds with LAWS and Carl Gustav rounds.

Nice to see our top Navy Brass have learned that lesson so well.

As have you, apparently.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Let's see.  Did you research the author?  I did.  He's a civilian Journalist.[/QUOTENever claimed the author was a pilot dumbass


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> wooossshhhhhhh!
> 
> And that was no F35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
Click to expand...

Like the LCS sinking ships during exercises with missiles it doesnt carry....its called fraud


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack.  It's already proven.  What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.
> 
> 
> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to bring in facts.  They do get in your way and should always be ignored.
> 
> As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb.  Then you want to cancel the replacement AC.  Well, shoddy work is shoddy work.  They need to get that flight deck usable.  Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we're doing already?  The Airfarce brass is all alike.  They think they can win battles by bombing people.  That hasn't worked yet.  You need boots on the ground to win a fight.  Those boots on the ground need a aircraft with a huge bomb load, and the loiter time to stick around for a while.  We need a COIN aircraft and the Airfarce brass are buying a weapon system for a non existent opponent.
> 
> It's kind of like the Navy's new Littoral Combat Vessels.  Designed to go in close and are all radar canceling but the good old Mark I eye ball can see them just fine.  I remember when the Argentinians sailed one of their destroyers into the harbor at South Georgia Island and the Royal Marines knocked it out in seconds with LAWS and Carl Gustav rounds.
> 
> Nice to see our top Navy Brass have learned that lesson so well.
> 
> As have you, apparently.
Click to expand...


Since CAS is rarely done by the USN, the Marines and USAF require You brought up a good point.  If those ground guys can see you, they have some really nasty surprises.  This is why the F-16 and A-10 failed to survive the  2014 Green Flag.  And the losses of both of them have been from ground fire in the Middle East.  During the 2015 Green Flag, two F-35s were assigned to one side to handle all the CAS missions.Not only did they take out the bad guys, they had zero losses.  You have to see it to hit it whether you are using IR, Radar or MkII Eyeballs.  The F-35A is ready to go into production next year and it can already handle CAS better than the two assigned it now.  Dead Pilots don't fly again.  Live Pilots that make it home do.  

The argument that the Army has used for keeping the A-10 just went out the window.  

Besides, you can drop a barrage of bombs to hit the target or you can just shoot your standoff missile and hit dead center.  Either way, the target is gone.  The difference is, to drop those gaggle of bombs you have to be able to see your target.  To use that Maverick or Hellfire, you have to see your target.  Your target also can see you.  

Your argument is also gone.  It's just whining at this point.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already "proven"?  What the heck has it attacked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.
> 
> 
> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to bring in facts.  They do get in your way and should always be ignored.
> 
> As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb.  Then you want to cancel the replacement AC.  Well, shoddy work is shoddy work.  They need to get that flight deck usable.  Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we're doing already?  The Airfarce brass is all alike.  They think they can win battles by bombing people.  That hasn't worked yet.  You need boots on the ground to win a fight.  Those boots on the ground need a aircraft with a huge bomb load, and the loiter time to stick around for a while.  We need a COIN aircraft and the Airfarce brass are buying a weapon system for a non existent opponent.
> 
> It's kind of like the Navy's new Littoral Combat Vessels.  Designed to go in close and are all radar canceling but the good old Mark I eye ball can see them just fine.  I remember when the Argentinians sailed one of their destroyers into the harbor at South Georgia Island and the Royal Marines knocked it out in seconds with LAWS and Carl Gustav rounds.
> 
> Nice to see our top Navy Brass have learned that lesson so well.
> 
> As have you, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since CAS is rarely done by the USN, the Marines and USAF require You brought up a good point.  If those ground guys can see you, they have some really nasty surprises.  This is why the F-16 and A-10 failed to survive the  2014 Green Flag.  And the losses of both of them have been from ground fire in the Middle East.  During the 2015 Green Flag, two F-35s were assigned to one side to handle all the CAS missions.Not only did they take out the bad guys, they had zero losses.  You have to see it to hit it whether you are using IR, Radar or MkII Eyeballs.  The F-35A is ready to go into production next year and it can already handle CAS better than the two assigned it now.  Dead Pilots don't fly again.  Live Pilots that make it home do.
> 
> The argument that the Army has used for keeping the A-10 just went out the window.
> 
> Besides, you can drop a barrage of bombs to hit the target or you can just shoot your standoff missile and hit dead center.  Either way, the target is gone.  The difference is, to drop those gaggle of bombs you have to be able to see your target.  To use that Maverick or Hellfire, you have to see your target.  Your target also can see you.
> 
> Your argument is also gone.  It's just whining at this point.
Click to expand...










No, my points are valid.  You are relying solely on biased reporting from the Air Force to further the program.  Which is totally expected, I certainly don't fault them for that, however there is so little REAL information coming out that their response, and your championing of them, remind me more of PRAVDA than anything real.

The Air Force cost estimates are totally silly.  There's no way that this aircraft is going to cost less than a Rafael, to claim that it will relies on willful stupidity from the readers of those reports.  The performance quotes are less than believable, but if they are great, it's doing what it's supposed to.  However when the newer generation of VHF radars come on line all that stealth tech will go right out the window.   

And the cycle will begin again.

P.S.  The idea in war is to kill the enemy as quickly and cheaply as possible.  The idea that you would expend a 18,000 bomb to kill someone on a regular basis is pretty ridiculous.  That's a real good way to go broke.  Oh look, we're broke.


----------



## Manonthestreet

BTW a-10 has been under pretty steady fire in Afghanistan and Iraq by Advanced AAM........how many have been lost?


----------



## Manonthestreet

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.
> 
> 
> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to bring in facts.  They do get in your way and should always be ignored.
> 
> As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb.  Then you want to cancel the replacement AC.  Well, shoddy work is shoddy work.  They need to get that flight deck usable.  Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we're doing already?  The Airfarce brass is all alike.  They think they can win battles by bombing people.  That hasn't worked yet.  You need boots on the ground to win a fight.  Those boots on the ground need a aircraft with a huge bomb load, and the loiter time to stick around for a while.  We need a COIN aircraft and the Airfarce brass are buying a weapon system for a non existent opponent.
> 
> It's kind of like the Navy's new Littoral Combat Vessels.  Designed to go in close and are all radar canceling but the good old Mark I eye ball can see them just fine.  I remember when the Argentinians sailed one of their destroyers into the harbor at South Georgia Island and the Royal Marines knocked it out in seconds with LAWS and Carl Gustav rounds.
> 
> Nice to see our top Navy Brass have learned that lesson so well.
> 
> As have you, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since CAS is rarely done by the USN, the Marines and USAF require You brought up a good point.  If those ground guys can see you, they have some really nasty surprises.  This is why the F-16 and A-10 failed to survive the  2014 Green Flag.  And the losses of both of them have been from ground fire in the Middle East.  During the 2015 Green Flag, two F-35s were assigned to one side to handle all the CAS missions.Not only did they take out the bad guys, they had zero losses.  You have to see it to hit it whether you are using IR, Radar or MkII Eyeballs.  The F-35A is ready to go into production next year and it can already handle CAS better than the two assigned it now.  Dead Pilots don't fly again.  Live Pilots that make it home do.
> 
> The argument that the Army has used for keeping the A-10 just went out the window.
> 
> Besides, you can drop a barrage of bombs to hit the target or you can just shoot your standoff missile and hit dead center.  Either way, the target is gone.  The difference is, to drop those gaggle of bombs you have to be able to see your target.  To use that Maverick or Hellfire, you have to see your target.  Your target also can see you.
> 
> Your argument is also gone.  It's just whining at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my points are valid.  You are relying solely on biased reporting from the Air Force to further the program.  Which is totally expected, I certainly don't fault them for that, however there is so little REAL information coming out that their response, and your championing of them, remind me more of PRAVDA than anything real.
> 
> The Air Force cost estimates are totally silly.  There's no way that this aircraft is going to cost less than a Rafael, to claim that it will relies on willful stupidity from the readers of those reports.  The performance quotes are less than believable, but if they are great, it's doing what it's supposed to.  However when the newer generation of VHF radars come on line all that stealth tech will go right out the window.
> 
> And the cycle will begin again.
> 
> P.S.  The idea in war is to kill the enemy as quickly and cheaply as possible.  The idea that you would expend a 18,000 bomb to kill someone on a regular basis is pretty ridiculous.  That's a real good way to go broke.  Oh look, we're broke.
Click to expand...

Not to mention losing on F-35 would have built how many A-10s or F--16s.....for that matter Scorpion might be better option


----------



## westwall

Manonthestreet said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.
> 
> 
> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to bring in facts.  They do get in your way and should always be ignored.
> 
> As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb.  Then you want to cancel the replacement AC.  Well, shoddy work is shoddy work.  They need to get that flight deck usable.  Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we're doing already?  The Airfarce brass is all alike.  They think they can win battles by bombing people.  That hasn't worked yet.  You need boots on the ground to win a fight.  Those boots on the ground need a aircraft with a huge bomb load, and the loiter time to stick around for a while.  We need a COIN aircraft and the Airfarce brass are buying a weapon system for a non existent opponent.
> 
> It's kind of like the Navy's new Littoral Combat Vessels.  Designed to go in close and are all radar canceling but the good old Mark I eye ball can see them just fine.  I remember when the Argentinians sailed one of their destroyers into the harbor at South Georgia Island and the Royal Marines knocked it out in seconds with LAWS and Carl Gustav rounds.
> 
> Nice to see our top Navy Brass have learned that lesson so well.
> 
> As have you, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since CAS is rarely done by the USN, the Marines and USAF require You brought up a good point.  If those ground guys can see you, they have some really nasty surprises.  This is why the F-16 and A-10 failed to survive the  2014 Green Flag.  And the losses of both of them have been from ground fire in the Middle East.  During the 2015 Green Flag, two F-35s were assigned to one side to handle all the CAS missions.Not only did they take out the bad guys, they had zero losses.  You have to see it to hit it whether you are using IR, Radar or MkII Eyeballs.  The F-35A is ready to go into production next year and it can already handle CAS better than the two assigned it now.  Dead Pilots don't fly again.  Live Pilots that make it home do.
> 
> The argument that the Army has used for keeping the A-10 just went out the window.
> 
> Besides, you can drop a barrage of bombs to hit the target or you can just shoot your standoff missile and hit dead center.  Either way, the target is gone.  The difference is, to drop those gaggle of bombs you have to be able to see your target.  To use that Maverick or Hellfire, you have to see your target.  Your target also can see you.
> 
> Your argument is also gone.  It's just whining at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my points are valid.  You are relying solely on biased reporting from the Air Force to further the program.  Which is totally expected, I certainly don't fault them for that, however there is so little REAL information coming out that their response, and your championing of them, remind me more of PRAVDA than anything real.
> 
> The Air Force cost estimates are totally silly.  There's no way that this aircraft is going to cost less than a Rafael, to claim that it will relies on willful stupidity from the readers of those reports.  The performance quotes are less than believable, but if they are great, it's doing what it's supposed to.  However when the newer generation of VHF radars come on line all that stealth tech will go right out the window.
> 
> And the cycle will begin again.
> 
> P.S.  The idea in war is to kill the enemy as quickly and cheaply as possible.  The idea that you would expend a 18,000 bomb to kill someone on a regular basis is pretty ridiculous.  That's a real good way to go broke.  Oh look, we're broke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention losing on F-35 would have built how many A-10s or F--16s.....for that matter Scorpion might be better option
Click to expand...







Yep, what good old Daryl doesn't seem to understand is you need to get the most bang for your buck possible.  A fleet of hangar queens does no one the slightest bit of good.


----------



## HenryBHough

Deficits being what they are, The Navy can afford to *have* ships OR *buy* F35's.

But not both.


----------



## williepete

*Daryl,*

I was a FAC in the OA-37B and the A-10 as well as on the ground. I'm having a hard time following your position.

What are your credentials? What is your experience in CAS?

Were you present at the CLASSIFIED Green Flag debriefings you reference? If so, why are you posting the results here? Are you that interested in living at Fort Leavenworth for several years?

*CAS is rarely done by the USN, Marines, USAF?*
Say again, you're coming in garbled.

*An Army argument to keep the A-10?* The A-10 is an Air Force asset and lives or dies by the Air Force budget whims-- arguments of the Army be damned.

Where does your font of expertise come from?

Not picking a fight. Just want to understand where you developed your position. Soon the F-35 may be the only game in town and it will have to perform CAS. Procedures will be in place by then for it to be as effective as it can be. If you are on the inside and already know these procedures and methods, why are you showing our hand here? An itching desire to be married to the guy with the most cigarettes?

Cheers,



*“Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know." --Lao Tzu*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do.  It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision.  2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses.  That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war.  The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016.  The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.
> 
> USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles.  Unlike you that want them all killed in combat.  How dare USAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that.  Just sayin.  As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good.  That's what it's supposed to do.  Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35.  I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck.  Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.
> 
> 
> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to bring in facts.  They do get in your way and should always be ignored.
> 
> As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb.  Then you want to cancel the replacement AC.  Well, shoddy work is shoddy work.  They need to get that flight deck usable.  Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we're doing already?  The Airfarce brass is all alike.  They think they can win battles by bombing people.  That hasn't worked yet.  You need boots on the ground to win a fight.  Those boots on the ground need a aircraft with a huge bomb load, and the loiter time to stick around for a while.  We need a COIN aircraft and the Airfarce brass are buying a weapon system for a non existent opponent.
> 
> It's kind of like the Navy's new Littoral Combat Vessels.  Designed to go in close and are all radar canceling but the good old Mark I eye ball can see them just fine.  I remember when the Argentinians sailed one of their destroyers into the harbor at South Georgia Island and the Royal Marines knocked it out in seconds with LAWS and Carl Gustav rounds.
> 
> Nice to see our top Navy Brass have learned that lesson so well.
> 
> As have you, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since CAS is rarely done by the USN, the Marines and USAF require You brought up a good point.  If those ground guys can see you, they have some really nasty surprises.  This is why the F-16 and A-10 failed to survive the  2014 Green Flag.  And the losses of both of them have been from ground fire in the Middle East.  During the 2015 Green Flag, two F-35s were assigned to one side to handle all the CAS missions.Not only did they take out the bad guys, they had zero losses.  You have to see it to hit it whether you are using IR, Radar or MkII Eyeballs.  The F-35A is ready to go into production next year and it can already handle CAS better than the two assigned it now.  Dead Pilots don't fly again.  Live Pilots that make it home do.
> 
> The argument that the Army has used for keeping the A-10 just went out the window.
> 
> Besides, you can drop a barrage of bombs to hit the target or you can just shoot your standoff missile and hit dead center.  Either way, the target is gone.  The difference is, to drop those gaggle of bombs you have to be able to see your target.  To use that Maverick or Hellfire, you have to see your target.  Your target also can see you.
> 
> Your argument is also gone.  It's just whining at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my points are valid.  You are relying solely on biased reporting from the Air Force to further the program.  Which is totally expected, I certainly don't fault them for that, however there is so little REAL information coming out that their response, and your championing of them, remind me more of PRAVDA than anything real.
> 
> The Air Force cost estimates are totally silly.  There's no way that this aircraft is going to cost less than a Rafael, to claim that it will relies on willful stupidity from the readers of those reports.  The performance quotes are less than believable, but if they are great, it's doing what it's supposed to.  However when the newer generation of VHF radars come on line all that stealth tech will go right out the window.
> 
> And the cycle will begin again.
> 
> P.S.  The idea in war is to kill the enemy as quickly and cheaply as possible.  The idea that you would expend a 18,000 bomb to kill someone on a regular basis is pretty ridiculous.  That's a real good way to go broke.  Oh look, we're broke.
Click to expand...


No, the idea of war is to remove your enemies will to fight.  That is the correct doctrine.  Completely wiping out an enemy to the last man means that PR is going to be used to create other enemies over and over.  We blew it in Iraq when we completely disbanded the Iraqi Military and wouldn't allow them to rejoin the new force.  We now call them ISIS and ISIL.

Now about cost affective weapons systems.  Okay, the F-22 and the B-2 are the best at what they do.  But they cost enough that production ceased long before the projected numbers were reached.  Even so, it was money well spent and keeps the US on top.  Both are part of the weapons systems that operate in contested war zones.  And both had you detractors harp on them as well.  The B-2 and the F-22 are being used in Syria and Iraq right now.  The day they can no longer do the job you will hear about then in combat.  

Now, let's take a look at the cost of the 2016 F-35 versus the F-16 that Saudi Arabia just ordered from Lockheed.  They are trying to save money over the F-15E which goes for about 110 million a copy.  The ordered F-16 for Saudi is about 85 million a copy.  It's heavier and in an air to air, it will lose to the F-16C or the F-15C.  It's been dubbed as the poorman's F-35.  The problem is, it's not stealthy at all.

If you haven't been following things, everyone is losing F-16s to ground to air.  The grunts just get better every day.  You seem to think that they are static.  Trust me, in the last 40 years, there has been some mighty strong developments in the Ground to Air.  Even the lowly Stinger can take out an AC from 10,000 feet.And there are a bunch of those in the bad guys hands left over from the 80s.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg.  It's getting downright unhealthy for low altitude these days.  And for those that fly at 20K, there are the SAMS that have also made strides.  If the Russians go ahead with the S-300 then it won't be healthy to go below 40,000 feet with anything other than a stealth bird.  This is what we would be facing if (or is it when) we go to war with Iran.  While we will dominate their AF's the Grunts are a different story.  

Now, what would a new F-16 cost?  Let's say that a totally equipped F-16C would cost right around 30 mil.  Sounds like a deal.  Next hear, USAF will be buying their F-35As for about 85 mil.  When a flight of 2 F-35s can do the job of a squadron of F-16 (you will lose some of these to ground to air) and a squadron of A-10s (you will also lose some of these) And you won't lose a single F-35A then it's quite a bargain.  You forget that in each A-10 or F-16 there resides a man in it.  That man took something like a million dollars to train and 6 years.  

The need is there.  The AC to do the job is there.  If it costs 3 times as much then so be it.  Pilots have families.


----------



## HenryBHough

Apparently so do drones.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

williepete said:


> *Daryl,*
> 
> I was a FAC in the OA-37B and the A-10 as well as on the ground. I'm having a hard time following your position.
> 
> What are your credentials? What is your experience in CAS?
> 
> Were you present at the CLASSIFIED Green Flag debriefings you reference? If so, why are you posting the results here? Are you that interested in living at Fort Leavenworth for several years?



I did two tours as ground FAC in the early 70s.  Well, until I started losing it.  And I doubt you will understand why.  The Ground is much different than the air.  I retired after 20 years from the AF.



> *CAS is rarely done by the USN, Marines, USAF?*
> Say again, you're coming in garbled.



Nice post editing.  The Navy trains less than any other branch.  The Marines and the AF are the primary fast mover CAS flyers.  Both are seeing the losses in the Middle East of the F-16s from Ground Attack.  In a north of the border Vietnam, the A-10 would be in big trouble flying by itself.  It would be cannon fodder for Migs and ground attack without topcap.  Today, even with Topcap, the Ground attack birds are being hammered.  If they can shoot down a F-16, they can just as easily shoot down an A-10.



> *An Army argument to keep the A-10?* The A-10 is an Air Force asset and lives or dies by the Air Force budget whims-- arguments of the Army be damned.



It's not about what is best, it's political jockeying.  The budget won't change.  But the political players won't either.



> Where does your font of expertise come from?
> 
> Not picking a fight. Just want to understand where you developed your position. Soon the F-35 may be the only game in town and it will have to perform CAS. Procedures will be in place by then for it to be as effective as it can be. If you are on the inside and already know these procedures and methods, why are you showing our hand here? An itching desire to be married to the guy with the most cigarettes?
> 
> Cheers,



I was in a Unit that went from the F-4E (slatted) to the F-15A.  Talk about growing pains.  Meanwhile, Hahn converted to the F-16 not long after.  Can you guess when and where I was stationed at?  The hints are there.

The F-15 had politicians playing the same game.   They wanted us to stay with the F-4 which pretty well had all the bugs worked out.  They said that the F-15 was far too expensive and not that much better.  While they were right about the cost, they were wrong about the capability of the F-15.  Even though it was the same company that made both, the parts came from different states and sources.  The F-15 lives up to it's own.

The same thing happened with the F-22.  It was slaughtered in the press as being way too expensive and not much better than an F-15.  While it was teething, that was correct.  Well, it's finished and it's teeth grew out.  Like the F-15 versus the F-4, the F-22 versus the F-15 is about the same.  The F-22 dwarfs any and all 4th gen fighters and it's over Iraq and Syria right now.

You are listening to Journalists on slow news days.  Next year, the F-35A and B both go into service and production.  If it goes like the ones that came before them then it should change what CAS is all about.  The days of the A-37 FAC is gone and the days of the A-10 FAC is quickly coming to an end. 

You are right, we are going to go with it.  But it's passing the tests with flying colors in the last year.  Does it need a gun?  Don't look for the F-35A to get the gun working until 2017 but if you are low enough to use that gun, you are going to be seen.  Internal standoffs do the same job with zero losses All the enemy sees is his troops buying the farm and their equipment going up in flames with nothing in sight causing it.  War is not about killing enemies, it's about taking away their will to fight.  You should already know this.


----------



## williepete

TACP, ALO or pilot?
*
*


----------



## kimmyalan

Let's rename it 'The Bush Mobile.'


----------



## Daryl Hunt

williepete said:


> TACP, ALO or pilot?



By then I was a desk jockey.  Sorry, never was a pilot.  Never wanted to be one.  But when I first went in, I ran sea level 5 min 10 second mile, could swim like a fish and had the physical conditioning to do anything required.  I turned down training to be a Para Rescue because, like I said at the time, Those guys are real heroes and I ain't no hero.  So I got roped into GFac instead.  And we weren't attached to any ground forces.  Read anything into that you like.  I am sure you will.

What you remember from your AF days is long gone.  Hell, I hated SAC with a passion and got my wish in 1991 when they got rid of it. AFTER I retired.    I don't recognize the AF these days.  It's all changed.  But I do understand the absolute need for a decent CAS bird that survives.  Many of my friends were Pilots and to lose any of them when it's not necessary is criminal.

As for the Drone that brought up drones, think of this.  The man on the scene gives me confidence.  The drone can't operate in contested areas like the manned bird can.  I don't want to take away from the importance of the Drones and their Pilots but they are only good if you control the skies.  This is why the F-16 is having losses.   The only combat losses for the F-16 ever is from Ground Forces.  Again, in every F-16 or A-10 is a human life.  

Now, I'll let you go off on another tangent.


----------



## williepete

Sorry to go off topic. Thanks for your service. As a ground and air FAC, I have a slightly different take on the issue. No problems.

*"What you remember from your AF days is long gone."
"I did two tours as ground FAC in the early 70s. Well, until I started losing it."*

From what you write, I got out after you. You're  a 70's guy. I got out in '96. (I still work with AD USAF and USN pilots).

Cheers


----------



## Manonthestreet

Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops


----------



## Daryl Hunt

williepete said:


> Sorry to go off topic. Thanks for your service. As a ground and air FAC, I have a slightly different take on the issue. No problems.
> 
> *"What you remember from your AF days is long gone."
> "I did two tours as ground FAC in the early 70s. Well, until I started losing it."*
> 
> From what you write, I got out after you. You're  a 70's guy. I got out in '96. (I still work with AD USAF and USN pilots).
> 
> Cheers



Do you ever completely get out?  Of course, the 70s was a wonderful time.  I got to do things, go places and have experiences that only a few get to in their lifetime.  Got to see the world through the back door and I got paid for it.  But in the 80s, I don't know if it were me or the Military (probably both) that changed.  For the next 10 years or so, it was just pure hell for this old pirate.  They started locking up people that did what we did for fun.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops



The A-10 operates in uncontested space.  The F-16 is operating in contested space.  As to who is losing the F-16s?  Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few.  ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air.  The A-10 would last about 10  minutes in that environment.  It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 operates in uncontested space.  The F-16 is operating in contested space.  As to who is losing the F-16s?  Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few.  ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air.  The A-10 would last about 10  minutes in that environment.  It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.
Click to expand...







It operates where?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 operates in uncontested space.  The F-16 is operating in contested space.  As to who is losing the F-16s?  Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few.  ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air.  The A-10 would last about 10  minutes in that environment.  It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It operates where?
Click to expand...


Thank you for showing damaged A-10s.  It could have been worse, much worse.  This is all damage from ground troops.  Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS.  The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended.  The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia.  It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.

It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 operates in uncontested space.  The F-16 is operating in contested space.  As to who is losing the F-16s?  Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few.  ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air.  The A-10 would last about 10  minutes in that environment.  It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It operates where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing damaged A-10s.  It could have been worse, much worse.  This is all damage from ground troops.  Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS.  The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended.  The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia.  It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.
> 
> It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.
Click to expand...








It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you.  Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD.  Good luck hiding from one of those.  The A-10 can take a hit.  The F-35 probably can't.  Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably.  Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat.  Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 operates in uncontested space.  The F-16 is operating in contested space.  As to who is losing the F-16s?  Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few.  ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air.  The A-10 would last about 10  minutes in that environment.  It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It operates where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing damaged A-10s.  It could have been worse, much worse.  This is all damage from ground troops.  Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS.  The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended.  The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia.  It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.
> 
> It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you.  Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD.  Good luck hiding from one of those.  The A-10 can take a hit.  The F-35 probably can't.  Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably.  Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat.  Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....
Click to expand...


One caught fire.  Just one.  Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well?  How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground?  You are being a very creative troll.

WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show.  We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time.  Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis.  It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States.  Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause?  They never officially said.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 operates in uncontested space.  The F-16 is operating in contested space.  As to who is losing the F-16s?  Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few.  ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air.  The A-10 would last about 10  minutes in that environment.  It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It operates where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing damaged A-10s.  It could have been worse, much worse.  This is all damage from ground troops.  Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS.  The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended.  The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia.  It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.
> 
> It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you.  Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD.  Good luck hiding from one of those.  The A-10 can take a hit.  The F-35 probably can't.  Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably.  Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat.  Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One caught fire.  Just one.  Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well?  How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground?  You are being a very creative troll.
> 
> WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show.  We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time.  Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis.  It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States.  Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause?  They never officially said.
Click to expand...







Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time?  Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines?  Or of the fuel systems to feed them?  

Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot.  I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old.  When they crash it is almost always operator error.  Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago.  The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about.  There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.

I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 operates in uncontested space.  The F-16 is operating in contested space.  As to who is losing the F-16s?  Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few.  ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air.  The A-10 would last about 10  minutes in that environment.  It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It operates where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing damaged A-10s.  It could have been worse, much worse.  This is all damage from ground troops.  Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS.  The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended.  The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia.  It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.
> 
> It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you.  Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD.  Good luck hiding from one of those.  The A-10 can take a hit.  The F-35 probably can't.  Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably.  Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat.  Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One caught fire.  Just one.  Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well?  How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground?  You are being a very creative troll.
> 
> WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show.  We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time.  Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis.  It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States.  Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause?  They never officially said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time?  Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines?  Or of the fuel systems to feed them?
> 
> Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot.  I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old.  When they crash it is almost always operator error.  Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago.  The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about.  There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.
> 
> I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.
Click to expand...


The more complex the problem the more failures and misgivings you will have.  The engine is new, nothing like it has ever been made.  The Avionics are new and nothing like it has ever been made.  The F-35s failures are not carried on as they shouldn't be.  But it's successes are also being incorporated in other US Birds.  Everything worthwhile is worth the misgivings and failures.  You don't get the best by giving up.

As I stated, last year for the F-35 or even the F-22 is a lifetime ago.  The ones they are using now are the preproduction models and not the experimental versions earlier.  And the Production Models will be even different under the skin.  

Now, your assessment, is it the A, B or E that had so many misgivings.  The B has been the most troublesome of them all and has slowed the development of the other two.  It's also the most complex.  The AF was not supposed to have the A model until 2017 but it appears it's going to service in 2016.   Someone got smart enough to actually spend time getting the A model ready.   The B model is still progged to go service in 2017.  It also shares more parts with the B than the A does.  The A uses more conventional small weapons while the B and C has to have them made.  This is why the A is pretty ready to go while the other two have a ways to go.  

But it's coming since we have no alternative.  Just bad mouthing it to bad mouth it does nothing but delay the release of a working weapon system.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It operates where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing damaged A-10s.  It could have been worse, much worse.  This is all damage from ground troops.  Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS.  The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended.  The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia.  It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.
> 
> It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you.  Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD.  Good luck hiding from one of those.  The A-10 can take a hit.  The F-35 probably can't.  Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably.  Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat.  Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One caught fire.  Just one.  Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well?  How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground?  You are being a very creative troll.
> 
> WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show.  We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time.  Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis.  It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States.  Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause?  They never officially said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time?  Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines?  Or of the fuel systems to feed them?
> 
> Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot.  I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old.  When they crash it is almost always operator error.  Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago.  The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about.  There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.
> 
> I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more complex the problem the more failures and misgivings you will have.  The engine is new, nothing like it has ever been made.  The Avionics are new and nothing like it has ever been made.  The F-35s failures are not carried on as they shouldn't be.  But it's successes are also being incorporated in other US Birds.  Everything worthwhile is worth the misgivings and failures.  You don't get the best by giving up.
> 
> As I stated, last year for the F-35 or even the F-22 is a lifetime ago.  The ones they are using now are the preproduction models and not the experimental versions earlier.  And the Production Models will be even different under the skin.
> 
> Now, your assessment, is it the A, B or E that had so many misgivings.  The B has been the most troublesome of them all and has slowed the development of the other two.  It's also the most complex.  The AF was not supposed to have the A model until 2017 but it appears it's going to service in 2016.   Someone got smart enough to actually spend time getting the A model ready.   The B model is still progged to go service in 2017.  It also shares more parts with the B than the A does.  The A uses more conventional small weapons while the B and C has to have them made.  This is why the A is pretty ready to go while the other two have a ways to go.
> 
> But it's coming since we have no alternative.  Just bad mouthing it to bad mouth it does nothing but delay the release of a working weapon system.
Click to expand...








Badmouthing something that's bad will hopefully make the people producing it, make it better.  There are no C models out in the general world, so the A is the only model the aviators were talking about.
That is what they have been flying in preparation for the C model.  They like the idea of the aircraft, they are just wondering how long it will take before the reality matches the hype.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing damaged A-10s.  It could have been worse, much worse.  This is all damage from ground troops.  Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS.  The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended.  The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia.  It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.
> 
> It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you.  Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD.  Good luck hiding from one of those.  The A-10 can take a hit.  The F-35 probably can't.  Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably.  Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat.  Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One caught fire.  Just one.  Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well?  How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground?  You are being a very creative troll.
> 
> WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show.  We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time.  Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis.  It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States.  Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause?  They never officially said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time?  Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines?  Or of the fuel systems to feed them?
> 
> Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot.  I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old.  When they crash it is almost always operator error.  Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago.  The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about.  There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.
> 
> I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more complex the problem the more failures and misgivings you will have.  The engine is new, nothing like it has ever been made.  The Avionics are new and nothing like it has ever been made.  The F-35s failures are not carried on as they shouldn't be.  But it's successes are also being incorporated in other US Birds.  Everything worthwhile is worth the misgivings and failures.  You don't get the best by giving up.
> 
> As I stated, last year for the F-35 or even the F-22 is a lifetime ago.  The ones they are using now are the preproduction models and not the experimental versions earlier.  And the Production Models will be even different under the skin.
> 
> Now, your assessment, is it the A, B or E that had so many misgivings.  The B has been the most troublesome of them all and has slowed the development of the other two.  It's also the most complex.  The AF was not supposed to have the A model until 2017 but it appears it's going to service in 2016.   Someone got smart enough to actually spend time getting the A model ready.   The B model is still progged to go service in 2017.  It also shares more parts with the B than the A does.  The A uses more conventional small weapons while the B and C has to have them made.  This is why the A is pretty ready to go while the other two have a ways to go.
> 
> But it's coming since we have no alternative.  Just bad mouthing it to bad mouth it does nothing but delay the release of a working weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Badmouthing something that's bad will hopefully make the people producing it, make it better.  There are no C models out in the general world, so the A is the only model the aviators were talking about.
> That is what they have been flying in preparation for the C model.  They like the idea of the aircraft, they are just wondering how long it will take before the reality matches the hype.
Click to expand...


I slept at a Motel 6 one night and became an expert in Sain Burgery.  Or was it a Scocket Riencist.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Australia just ditched whole lot of theirs... too expensive...too crappy, and their ships cant handle it.......oooops.  Cost for everybody else just went up.  Australia Not To Operate F-35B Fighters For LHDs


----------



## shadow355

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

 
 Lame duck.

 They should have taken the money they invested, and refined and improved upon the F/A-18.

  I see the F-35 as a dream aircraft, a Osprey......except for jet engines.

  The newest F/A-18 is a near perfect aircraft. It is combat proven, and maneuvers like a dream.

  Long live the F/A-18 !



  Shadow 355


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The main problem with the F-18 is that it's underpowered.  If you look at it closely, it's a refined F-5.  While not a bad thing, the same problem of underpowering exists much like the complaint of the F-5 which it grew out of.  There are now better AC for carriers out there just not from the US.  I have often wondered what the advantage for performance the F-35C has over the F-18E.  The answer is, none.  

But when you factor in the avionics, radar signature and range, the F-35 wins.  The question is, at what cost.  The F-35C many not be needed that bad.

But there is no reason why the importance of the A and B models are so important.  

The A is needed to team up with the F-22 to clear corridors so that legacy AC can operate in.  Ground Attack has gotten so good that unless you clear it out, Aircraft are in serious jeopardy.  Without clearing of this corridor, the F-18/16/15 and many other 3rd and 4th gen birds will be cut to pieces.  Yes, the F-22 can do this mission by itself but the cost is out of even the deep pockets of the US.  Russia is finding this out right now with their Pak-50.  The world class Multirole AC for the 5th gen is just too expensive.    You can make it look like a 5th gen but unless it really IS a 5th gen, you are still a 4th gen that looks cool.

The B is a huge leap from the AV8.  It's safer to operate, has greater speed, longer range.  The B has all the advantages of the AV8 without all the problems.  

I don't think the AU really needs the F-35C like they planned.  While I may be a promoter to the A model, unless you need it don't buy it.  The US needs it.

.


----------



## Manonthestreet

No, F-35 Can't Fight Long-Range, Either No F-35 Can t Fight Long-Range Either RealClearDefense
Flying truck.....great fighter


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> No, F-35 Can't Fight Long-Range, Either No F-35 Can t Fight Long-Range Either RealClearDefense
> Flying truck.....great fighter



The claimed ranges for the Russian Radar is out of what.  You would have to be in orbit to see 750 miles away.  Your article is about as misinformed as it can get.


----------



## Manonthestreet

In the assessment submitted to Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, Gilmore said “Marine maintainers had rapid, ready access to spare parts from shore” and “received significant assistance” from Lockheed and subcontractor personnel.

Even with these advantages, “aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two or three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day,” he wrote. Lockheed F-35 s Reliability Found Wanting in Shipboard Testing - Bloomberg Business
Wow...can you imagine how quickly your air wing would be inoperable under real conditions.....thing might only be good for pretty pictures and wasting money.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> In the assessment submitted to Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, Gilmore said “Marine maintainers had rapid, ready access to spare parts from shore” and “received significant assistance” from Lockheed and subcontractor personnel.
> 
> Even with these advantages, “aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two or three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day,” he wrote. Lockheed F-35 s Reliability Found Wanting in Shipboard Testing - Bloomberg Business
> Wow...can you imagine how quickly your air wing would be inoperable under real conditions.....thing might only be good for pretty pictures and wasting money.



The F-15 and the F-22 was no different.  New Birds are like that.  They grow out of it in time.  You forget that I was with the F-15 on the first front lined unit.  We still had more than our fair share of problems and could only do a 33% generation rate until the last mods were made on the A model that corrected many of the problems.   

The Navy has announced that they could care less if the F-35C can dogfight or not.  They are looking forward to getting in the air in their carrier group because of the sensors. The F-35C may not be the one to launch the Aim-120s.  It may come from the F-18 where the F-35 guides it in.  

In Syria, the F-22 has been used to knock out ground radar sites allowing the legacy fighters to do their jobs.  We just don't have enough F-22s to do it all.  We need the F-35 to keep the legacy fighters alive.  So keep hammering.  The F-35 is doing just fine.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Please provide more than your say so...F-22 had teething problems which are much different than not working period


----------



## Manonthestreet

if its not firing missles but only "guiding" it aint a fighter...... awacs do guiding...


----------



## Manonthestreet

BTW there wont be F-18s to guide since those are supposed to go away.......oooops


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Please provide more than your say so...F-22 had teething problems which are much different than not working period



Not working means it kills pilots.  And the F-22 has at least 2 to it's name and some really serious close to death incidence as well.  Do you ever watch news programs or listen to a radio, read a paper?  Slowly back away from Foxsnews and read a newspaper for a change.  Change the channel on your radio to a regular local station instead of NPR.  Your response doesn't mean a thing other than you are ignorant.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> BTW there wont be F-18s to guide since those are supposed to go away.......oooops



They won't be going away anytime soon.  The Navy won't have enough F-35s to replace all of them.  What goes out is the old A/F-18C/D.  The Bug, not the Superbug.  The E/F will still be around.  They are newer and cheaper to maintain than the old Bug which are really long on the tooth.  The Marines will get rid of the Bug and the Harrier.  Both are very expensive to fly.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> if its not firing missles but only "guiding" it aint a fighter...... awacs do guiding...



Yuppers, an AWACs that you can't find.  The AWACs of today are based on the 747, 777 and 737.  As important as an AWACs is, they fly with a great big "Shoot Me" sign painted on the side.


----------



## HenryBHough

So today it's announced that the overstuffed turkey is ready for limited combat.

"Limited".

So any enemy is gonna do, what, blindfold their fighter pilots just to make things fair?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> So today it's announced that the overstuffed turkey is ready for limited combat.
> 
> "Limited".
> 
> So any enemy is gonna do, what, blindfold their fighter pilots just to make things fair?



Glad  you brought up the enemy having fighters with blindfolds on.  That is exactly why the F-35 is going to make happen.  During the last Green Flag, that is exactly what the enemy experienced.  You only get to see the missile or JDAM just before impact.  This goes for air and ground enemies.  The F-22 is operating completely unseen over Syria.  They are waiting to see if the Syrian AF will attack the legacy fighters.  If they do, the F-22 already has lock.  They have also been knocking out ground radar installations.  But we only have 187 F-22 and the next 400 F-35As will be a godsend. ICUUCMe doesn't apply with either the F-22 or the F-35 and the enemy just as well wear blindfolds.


----------



## Manonthestreet

A new report by a progressive think-tank says the astronomically expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is inferior compared to other “near-peer” competitors and will be mismatched against emerging threats.
“The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” the report states. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft.” The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane - Military Affairs - Chinadaily Forum


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 days are numbered. Article is an admission of such. At this production rate you may as well park your carriers because it'll take 4 to 5 yrs just to equip one. 
US Navy considers reduced annual F-35C buy - 8 13 2015 - Flight Global
The US Navy believes budget pressures and competing priorities could drive it to purchase fewer Lockheed Martin F-35Cs per year in the 2020s, and a worst-case scenario could see it procure as few as 12 aircraft per year, or one squadron.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 days are numbered. Article is an admission of such. At this production rate you may as well park your carriers because it'll take 4 to 5 yrs just to equip one.
> US Navy considers reduced annual F-35C buy - 8 13 2015 - Flight Global
> The US Navy believes budget pressures and competing priorities could drive it to purchase fewer Lockheed Martin F-35Cs per year in the 2020s, and a worst-case scenario could see it procure as few as 12 aircraft per year, or one squadron.



When the first F-22 w as tested against a F-15, the F-15 kicked it's butt.  Once they got the flight software right, the F-22 kicked the F-15s butt with 2 F-22s against 8 to 12 F-15s in all flight parameters.  Sit back and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> A new report by a progressive think-tank says the astronomically expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is inferior compared to other “near-peer” competitors and will be mismatched against emerging threats.
> “The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” the report states. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft.” The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane - Military Affairs - Chinadaily Forum



Wow using a Chinese news source.  Get a real source.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new report by a progressive think-tank says the astronomically expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is inferior compared to other “near-peer” competitors and will be mismatched against emerging threats.
> “The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” the report states. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft.” The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane - Military Affairs - Chinadaily Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow using a Chinese news source.  Get a real source.
Click to expand...

story all over the net....chose chinese as most likely opp force....they gotta be laughing their ass off


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 days are numbered. Article is an admission of such. At this production rate you may as well park your carriers because it'll take 4 to 5 yrs just to equip one.
> US Navy considers reduced annual F-35C buy - 8 13 2015 - Flight Global
> The US Navy believes budget pressures and competing priorities could drive it to purchase fewer Lockheed Martin F-35Cs per year in the 2020s, and a worst-case scenario could see it procure as few as 12 aircraft per year, or one squadron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the first F-22 w as tested against a F-15, the F-15 kicked it's butt.  Once they got the flight software right, the F-22 kicked the F-15s butt with 2 F-22s against 8 to 12 F-15s in all flight parameters.  Sit back and enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...

Highly doubt that..........


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new report by a progressive think-tank says the astronomically expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is inferior compared to other “near-peer” competitors and will be mismatched against emerging threats.
> “The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” the report states. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft.” The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane - Military Affairs - Chinadaily Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow using a Chinese news source.  Get a real source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> story all over the net....chose chinese as most likely opp force....they gotta be laughing their ass off
Click to expand...


You quoted a Chinese Government Controlled site that constantly lies it's ass off to it's own people.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Its same story on yahoo and any other site......


----------



## Manonthestreet

The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane The Fiscal Times

The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane - Yahoo Finance

Naval Open Source INTelligence


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane The Fiscal Times
> 
> The 1 Trillion Question for the F-35 Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane - Yahoo Finance
> 
> Naval Open Source INTelligence



Hew said, they said with no names or references.  Some Mysterious think tank, an unanamed department chief, etc.  Where's the beef.


----------



## I amso IR

Being a retired Army guy with no dog in this fight, I really could not care any less. Being a tax payer, I really could care a bit more, but at this point as has been the case for many years, yawn! That an F15 or F16 operating at full efficiency with a well trained and experienced pilot, might have perhaps given heart burn to a test pilot who was not flying a finished model, that is to say, incomplete aircraft, yawn again. When the electronic's and avionics are completed and pilots have flying experience comparable to today's F15 and F16 drivers, lets do it again. By the time, be it one day or 1000 days when the F35 is the finished product those erstwhile friendly fighters and the erstwhile Russian and Chinese aircraft will be equally older. And when the F35 along with the F22 are waxing their south ends while traveling north, let it be said "goody, goody, gumdrops". And should it so happen that the enemy planes are hit and destroyed without knowing who dunnit, is even better. Perhaps we could rig up some of the old birds in storage in Arizona as drones and let them into the fight. While Ivan and Yang are trying to kill drones the real thing (F35) can be having a field day. You heard it here first. Best regards, an Army guy P.S. Thank God for the Apache and it's ground support, something no one else cares about. As for the Warthog, dead meat! Perhaps one day the Army will get it's way and put the Air Force to shame.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Only plane that'll do that is  F-22, more than enough evidence here F35 is nothing but a step backward


----------



## I amso IR

Manonthestreet said:


> Only plane that'll do that is  F-22, more than enough evidence here F35 is nothing but a step backward


I amso IR

"more than enough evidence here". Here where? On the Message Board? The only thing I see on Message Board is opinions and seriously doubt the validity of those, mine included. I consider evidence as somewhat factual and not found in most press releases. Please, show some evidence published by reliable sources. Some guy who knows another guys wife whose husband is an Air Force pilot is not good enough. F35 pilots speaking off the record is not good either. There is not a plane in the air that could not have been better. When DOD pulls the plug on the life support, I will believe.


----------



## airplanemechanic

I'd heard that an F-35 went up against an F-16 and got its ass kicked.

People are talking about Chinese jets going up against the F-35. The whole idea was to give the F-35 such superior avionics that the Chinese jets would be floating down in many little pieces long before they knew the Americans were around. That being said....you HAVE to make a plane that can dogfight. Remember the F-4 without a gun? They just gave it missiles, figured it didn't need a gun. WTF??? 

I'm not impressed with the F35 but the F22 is doing a great job and is operational and kicking ass.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I amso IR said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only plane that'll do that is  F-22, more than enough evidence here F35 is nothing but a step backward
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR
> 
> "more than enough evidence here". Here where? On the Message Board? The only thing I see on Message Board is opinions and seriously doubt the validity of those, mine included. I consider evidence as somewhat factual and not found in most press releases. Please, show some evidence published by reliable sources. Some guy who knows another guys wife whose husband is an Air Force pilot is not good enough. F35 pilots speaking off the record is not good either. There is not a plane in the air that could not have been better. When DOD pulls the plug on the life support, I will believe.[/QUOT
Click to expand...



Read.......article after article by knowledgeable people and experts........voluminous indictment


----------



## Daryl Hunt

airplanemechanic said:


> I'd heard that an F-35 went up against an F-16 and got its ass kicked.
> 
> People are talking about Chinese jets going up against the F-35. The whole idea was to give the F-35 such superior avionics that the Chinese jets would be floating down in many little pieces long before they knew the Americans were around. That being said....you HAVE to make a plane that can dogfight. Remember the F-4 without a gun? They just gave it missiles, figured it didn't need a gun. WTF???
> 
> I'm not impressed with the F35 but the F22 is doing a great job and is operational and kicking ass.



Right now, the F-22 is flying the F-35 missions in Syria.  They are very affective.  But there are no bad guys in the air to contest it.  Put in the Bad Guys in the equation, the F-22 will have to be Air to Air and there is nothing in the inventory to nail the ground sites without losses.  As good as the F-16 and F-18 is, the ground stuff are better.  Get rid of the SA and the conventional 4th gen fighter will have a hayday.  Don't get rid of it and we are going to be losing pilots (forget about AC).  If all the F-35 does is to bag those SA sites then it's doing it's job for right now.  Not to mention bagging the Comm Sites.  If you can't see, you can't fight.  You are asking it to be the second coming of a fighter.  Right now, that might describe the F-22 but we won't be getting any more of those anytime soon.  When you compare the cost of another F-22 at over 200 million, maybe the 100 million for the F-35 ain't so bad.  In the end, it's how affective the tandem F-22/F-35 operates in areas that would be suicide for the 4th gen fighters.  Like the night flights over bagdad with NO losses.  No other AC could have operated with no losses in the environment in 1991.  When the balloon goes up, we need every advantage we can have or you will have to learn to speak another language and Spanish ain't it.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd heard that an F-35 went up against an F-16 and got its ass kicked.
> 
> People are talking about Chinese jets going up against the F-35. The whole idea was to give the F-35 such superior avionics that the Chinese jets would be floating down in many little pieces long before they knew the Americans were around. That being said....you HAVE to make a plane that can dogfight. Remember the F-4 without a gun? They just gave it missiles, figured it didn't need a gun. WTF???
> 
> I'm not impressed with the F35 but the F22 is doing a great job and is operational and kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, the F-22 is flying the F-35 missions in Syria.  They are very affective.  But there are no bad guys in the air to contest it.  Put in the Bad Guys in the equation, the F-22 will have to be Air to Air and there is nothing in the inventory to nail the ground sites without losses.  As good as the F-16 and F-18 is, the ground stuff are better.  Get rid of the SA and the conventional 4th gen fighter will have a hayday.  Don't get rid of it and we are going to be losing pilots (forget about AC).  If all the F-35 does is to bag those SA sites then it's doing it's job for right now.  Not to mention bagging the Comm Sites.  If you can't see, you can't fight.  You are asking it to be the second coming of a fighter.  Right now, that might describe the F-22 but we won't be getting any more of those anytime soon.  When you compare the cost of another F-22 at over 200 million, maybe the 100 million for the F-35 ain't so bad.  In the end, it's how affective the tandem F-22/F-35 operates in areas that would be suicide for the 4th gen fighters.  Like the night flights over bagdad with NO losses.  No other AC could have operated with no losses in the environment in 1991.  When the balloon goes up, we need every advantage we can have or you will have to learn to speak another language and Spanish ain't it.
Click to expand...

F-15E alrdy does the job......carries more ordnance too........faster.....longer range.......


----------



## Manonthestreet

and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd heard that an F-35 went up against an F-16 and got its ass kicked.
> 
> People are talking about Chinese jets going up against the F-35. The whole idea was to give the F-35 such superior avionics that the Chinese jets would be floating down in many little pieces long before they knew the Americans were around. That being said....you HAVE to make a plane that can dogfight. Remember the F-4 without a gun? They just gave it missiles, figured it didn't need a gun. WTF???
> 
> I'm not impressed with the F35 but the F22 is doing a great job and is operational and kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, the F-22 is flying the F-35 missions in Syria.  They are very affective.  But there are no bad guys in the air to contest it.  Put in the Bad Guys in the equation, the F-22 will have to be Air to Air and there is nothing in the inventory to nail the ground sites without losses.  As good as the F-16 and F-18 is, the ground stuff are better.  Get rid of the SA and the conventional 4th gen fighter will have a hayday.  Don't get rid of it and we are going to be losing pilots (forget about AC).  If all the F-35 does is to bag those SA sites then it's doing it's job for right now.  Not to mention bagging the Comm Sites.  If you can't see, you can't fight.  You are asking it to be the second coming of a fighter.  Right now, that might describe the F-22 but we won't be getting any more of those anytime soon.  When you compare the cost of another F-22 at over 200 million, maybe the 100 million for the F-35 ain't so bad.  In the end, it's how affective the tandem F-22/F-35 operates in areas that would be suicide for the 4th gen fighters.  Like the night flights over bagdad with NO losses.  No other AC could have operated with no losses in the environment in 1991.  When the balloon goes up, we need every advantage we can have or you will have to learn to speak another language and Spanish ain't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F-15E alrdy does the job......carries more ordnance too........faster.....longer range.......
Click to expand...


And the F-15E stands out like a huge beacon to the ground SA sites.  It has come from being the best of the best to having a huge Shoot Me sign on it's side.  Those ground sites have to be cleared before the F-15E enters into the area.

If the F-22 is busy flying topcap then something else needs to clear the corridor for the F-15E to attack.  And the F-35 is planned to do just that.  It can do it now.  So what if it can't dogfight a F-16.  Nothing much can either.  But it can stand off and take out ground sites that will blow the 4th gen fighters and bombers out of the sky.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less



A fighter with a missile up it's ass, it doesn't matter how cheap you got it for.  You just lost a pilot worth millions.


----------



## SteadyMercury

I amso IR said:


> "more than enough evidence here". Here where? On the Message Board?


Good luck with that, it is impossible to pin down ManOnTheStreet to back up anything he says about the F-35. Most of my interactions with him have been like this:

MOTS: The F-35 has too much of an IR signature to be stealthy 
SM: What is the F-35's IR signature and how does it compare to other fighters
MOTS: Go read some, everyone knows
SM: Tell me then, how are you measuring the F-35s IR signature and how does it compare?
MOTS: You're ignoring the evidence!
SM: Then type out the words to tell me the numbers
MOTS: Experts have measured it!
(etc.)


----------



## SteadyMercury

Manonthestreet said:


> and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less


F-15SAs and F-15Ks cost about 120 million.

from Bogdan F-35 Costs Down Despite Worries


> According to figures provided by Bogdan, the average cost-per-unit in low-rate initial production lots six, seven and eight, the last three lots on contract, have fallen like this:
> 
> F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model: $117 million, $112 million, $108 million.
> F-35B "jump-jet" model: $145 million, $137 million, $134 million.
> F-35C carrier variant: $134 million, $130 million, $129 million.
> Those figures Include engines, profit for contractors and adjusts for inflation.



According to New F-35 Prices A 95M B 102M C 116M Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary prices for the F_35A will be well under 100 million by 2019.

I'll be interested to hear you explain how a 120 million dollar F-15 costs half an F-35.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

SteadyMercury said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less
> 
> 
> 
> F-15SAs and F-15Ks cost about 120 million.
> 
> from Bogdan F-35 Costs Down Despite Worries
> 
> 
> 
> According to figures provided by Bogdan, the average cost-per-unit in low-rate initial production lots six, seven and eight, the last three lots on contract, have fallen like this:
> 
> F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model: $117 million, $112 million, $108 million.
> F-35B "jump-jet" model: $145 million, $137 million, $134 million.
> F-35C carrier variant: $134 million, $130 million, $129 million.
> Those figures Include engines, profit for contractors and adjusts for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to New F-35 Prices A 95M B 102M C 116M Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary prices for the F_35A will be well under 100 million by 2019.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear you explain how a 120 million dollar F-15 costs half an F-35.
Click to expand...


And you can add another 4 million for the SE version.  And then you only get the radar reduction from the front and the sides.  You are still lighting up the Radar from the rear.  Plus, you are still lighting up the IR from all sides.


----------



## SteadyMercury

In addition to limitations you mentioned I saw a video of F-15SE's internal weapons carriage dealie, it was clever for an add-on but payload capacity looked pretty limited.

It was like four slots that would open up (two on the side, two on the bottom) and a hydraulic rack would extend with a single hardpoint. Flying clean it wouldn't be useful for much more than air superiority role since you'd use two of them for AMRAAMs and the hardware can't carry anything in the 2000lb class like a GBU-31. Maybe they can put multiple SDBs on one of those internal hardpoints, not sure.

Another thing I don't get is how F-15SE would manage dynamic targeting if flying stealthy. It wouldn't have EOTS built into the airframe, so you'd need to carry a sniper pod externally like F-15E thus compromising your LO. Sure it could still deliver GPS guided weapons (like F-22 did over Syria) or manage target designation with the help of other assets but flying clean it would really be limited in targeting capabilities compared to F-35.


----------



## I amso IR

I have not been here for a while and it appears no one else has either. Anyone have any news on the F35? I've been thinking, dangerous for me, and been wondering why the Air Force insisted on using the F designation on the 35. It seems to me that small error could be the cause of much pain. I have to think that with the transition from the F22 and how it's capabilities as a pure fighter may have caused the critics to expect more from the 35 than it can deliver. The immediate impression by the F designation is eye to eye encounters, something the 35 is not intended to do. Since the 35 is to provide air interdiction, albeit from over the horizon or knocking out ground air defense, communicating with satellites and all that good stuff, perhaps a better designation would be A35. Get the hell away from the F factor. And to be fair, it can still, if all else fails, mix it up with the pure bred if it absolutely must. As us Army guys say, when all else fails, fix bayonets and charge. Then again, I may be wrong and if I am, oh well. I am still willing to wait and see. The 35 must be capable of something or the Corps would not give it a clean bill of health. Fleet defense comes to mind. Take Wang or Ivan out while he is preparing to engage.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Ivan will be 20,000 ft above shooting down at your low and slow ass. Better have the best electronic countermeasure suite ever seen cause you will need it


----------



## I amso IR

The proof is in the puddin. I am not a 35 driver with training so I cannot say. How many hours do you have in the 35? Being in a Viet Nam or Desert Storm frame of mind is not going to help you either. Every poster here is to old and to slow to be qualified to say. Opinions are like that certain bodily orifice, everybody has one and most stink. One thing Ivan won't be, is above that satellite which is tracking him for me and that F22  closing in. And he may or may not take me out. But you can be sure of one thing, I will be the last thing he ever concentrates on as he will be bait for a 4th gen fighter. It is all about numbers and an element of surprise. Something us arm chair generals are very short on. You keep telling folks to read as the information is "out there". Give me some sources. Make a list of your official sources and reading list so I can read them also, if you are so confident in them. The only_ fact_ I am certain of, is that usmessageboard is not one of them. I will admit to one thing however, the cost of air interdiction is way to large and the age of manned aerial fighters is short on time. I find the _fact_ that a few years ago the west broke the Soviets back using economics and fear the same may happen to all of us, sooner than later. My confidence is in what the bean counters propose and our military scientists deem possible. Not in armchair pilots. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, is horse puckey.


----------



## Manonthestreet

How many hrs do you need to read specs of each....like speed rate of climb altitude supercruise or no supercruise........you can read cant you......maybe you just dont understand the implications.


----------



## Manonthestreet

You dont have enough F-22 to cover your ass......its only good against nations without an airforce


----------



## I amso IR

189 of them should be able to do the job. As for nations without an air force, why in the world would we need Gen 5 aircraft at all. Yes I am able to read, pro as well con reports. In fact I read a report involving a Naval aviator and Air Force aviator who are 35 drivers. While they lament the software problems and delays, they present a favorable opinion of the aircraft. They feel it is up to the job that is required of it when finally the software is finalized. So honestly, I again say, when completed, the bird will perform as intended. It is not intended to mix it up in the WWll, Smiling Jack fashion, with scarf flying in the breeze. And with today's and tomorrow's smart missiles which are capable of tracking and locking on without human assistance things will be far more mundane. And as with the F22 which flew under the Iranian F14 which had no idea he was there, what can I say? You do not want the system and that is fine. I still say, wait for the end result. If it is not what it is designed to be, I will be among the first to say I screwed the pooch. As far as specs go, I read it is a 1200 mph craft. Service ceiling is thought to be 50,000 ft but not confirmed. It is capable of short super cruise bursts, perhaps 15 min worth. That is why I feel it was an error to give this plane the F prefix. Can it absorb punishment as the A10 does, no. But then on the other hand it is not designed to loiter and provide classic ground support. That is the reason the Army developed the attack helicopter, the AH1. Of course they did that long before the F35 was a gleam in it's daddy's eye. CAS has never been the strong suit of the Air Force. If it had been they would never have dumped the Skyraider or it's type. Fast movers do not do well at ground level, never have and never will. But that is a horse of another color. So lets see what this discussion has accomplished. Nothing is the correct response. Peace, Smilin Jack.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

They also developed the AH-1 long before the A-10.  The AH-1/64 are quite capable of doing CAS themselves.  The Marines use the AH-1 just for that.  And the Army uses the AF-64 for everything but CAS which is is quite capable of doing.  I think it's a training and doctrine issue for the Army and the AF really shouldn't be that much in the picture.  The Army is still trying to get fixed wing aircraft above Observation.  And they are willing to bet their own troops lives in combat to get it.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I amso IR said:


> 189 of them should be able to do the job. As for nations without an air force, why in the world would we need Gen 5 aircraft at all. Yes I am able to read, pro as well con reports. In fact I read a report involving a Naval aviator and Air Force aviator who are 35 drivers. While they lament the software problems and delays, they present a favorable opinion of the aircraft. They feel it is up to the job that is required of it when finally the software is finalized. So honestly, I again say, when completed, the bird will perform as intended. It is not intended to mix it up in the WWll, Smiling Jack fashion, with scarf flying in the breeze. And with today's and tomorrow's smart missiles which are capable of tracking and locking on without human assistance things will be far more mundane. And as with the F22 which flew under the Iranian F14 which had no idea he was there, what can I say? You do not want the system and that is fine. I still say, wait for the end result. If it is not what it is designed to be, I will be among the first to say I screwed the pooch. As far as specs go, I read it is a 1200 mph craft. Service ceiling is thought to be 50,000 ft but not confirmed. It is capable of short super cruise bursts, perhaps 15 min worth. That is why I feel it was an error to give this plane the F prefix. Can it absorb punishment as the A10 does, no. But then on the other hand it is not designed to loiter and provide classic ground support. That is the reason the Army developed the attack helicopter, the AH1. Of course they did that long before the F35 was a gleam in it's daddy's eye. CAS has never been the strong suit of the Air Force. If it had been they would never have dumped the Skyraider or it's type. Fast movers do not do well at ground level, never have and never will. But that is a horse of another color. So lets see what this discussion has accomplished. Nothing is the correct response. Peace, Smilin Jack.


Actuallly no....AF has alrdy admitted they dont have near enough of them to babysit your piece of crap


----------



## Manonthestreet

Wont be any F-22s on carriers either to cover their ass.......you seem to believe in  magic propaganda that the f-35 is all seeing while enemy planes cant see anything...........all that is needed is fly out push a button and fly back..........thats a drone........not a fighter..........unfortunately things wont be that simple...... The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 189 of them should be able to do the job. As for nations without an air force, why in the world would we need Gen 5 aircraft at all. Yes I am able to read, pro as well con reports. In fact I read a report involving a Naval aviator and Air Force aviator who are 35 drivers. While they lament the software problems and delays, they present a favorable opinion of the aircraft. They feel it is up to the job that is required of it when finally the software is finalized. So honestly, I again say, when completed, the bird will perform as intended. It is not intended to mix it up in the WWll, Smiling Jack fashion, with scarf flying in the breeze. And with today's and tomorrow's smart missiles which are capable of tracking and locking on without human assistance things will be far more mundane. And as with the F22 which flew under the Iranian F14 which had no idea he was there, what can I say? You do not want the system and that is fine. I still say, wait for the end result. If it is not what it is designed to be, I will be among the first to say I screwed the pooch. As far as specs go, I read it is a 1200 mph craft. Service ceiling is thought to be 50,000 ft but not confirmed. It is capable of short super cruise bursts, perhaps 15 min worth. That is why I feel it was an error to give this plane the F prefix. Can it absorb punishment as the A10 does, no. But then on the other hand it is not designed to loiter and provide classic ground support. That is the reason the Army developed the attack helicopter, the AH1. Of course they did that long before the F35 was a gleam in it's daddy's eye. CAS has never been the strong suit of the Air Force. If it had been they would never have dumped the Skyraider or it's type. Fast movers do not do well at ground level, never have and never will. But that is a horse of another color. So lets see what this discussion has accomplished. Nothing is the correct response. Peace, Smilin Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> Actuallly no....AF has alrdy admitted they dont have near enough of them to babysit your piece of crap
Click to expand...


When operating against the Chinese and Russians, the F-18 and the F-15 won't cut it close up.  While the EF-18G will be in the fight from a very long range, the F-22 won't be enough to handle it.  You keep forgetting that Army and Naval firepower will make a very hostile invoroment for any non stealth bird.  The Naval and ground radar has to be taken out.  And any of the 4th gen fighters will be committing suicide.  If we can't have more F-22s then we need lots and lots of F-35 of the A and C models.


----------



## I amso IR

The C model can communicate with CIC in the battle group. Does it automatically so the F22 is not needed. With it's weapons it can engage surface vessels and the Burke can be used to support the 35's. So in reality it will be as well defended as the A model. Ain't electronics great? One little airplane has the electronic strength of the carrier battle group at it's disposal. The Russian Philosophy you say. Is it "they must be out there some where"? No, and am not interested in knowing. I will leave that folks above my pay grade. Perhaps you are one of those folks, I cannot say. But if you are you remind me of the kids in this day and age who do something illegal, post it on face book and can't understand why the get arrested. Of course the enemy can see, we would not be doing all we can to not be seen. Shucks I learned that in 1961 in Berlin when we faced down the Russians at Check Point Charlie. They would point at us and we would wave back at them so they knew we too could see. I spent five years watching them while they watched us. During my total of nine years in Germany, one in Viet Nam and two in Korea I learned a lot about the "other" guy while they learned about us. Forgive me I digress. Ivan builds some very good aircraft which is why we do our job of building better. Even the Chinese are using Ivan"s stuff. It is always easier to copy the other guys stuff. That is why we will be working against Russian and Chinese versions of the F35 in the future. But we will use it first and by that time have the new improved version capable of sustained sustained super cruise. It is a heat problem thing that needs to be ironed out.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> The C model can communicate with CIC in the battle group. Does it automatically so the F22 is not needed. With it's weapons it can engage surface vessels and the Burke can be used to support the 35's. So in reality it will be as well defended as the A model. Ain't electronics great? One little airplane has the electronic strength of the carrier battle group at it's disposal. The Russian Philosophy you say. Is it "they must be out there some where"? No, and am not interested in knowing. I will leave that folks above my pay grade. Perhaps you are one of those folks, I cannot say. But if you are you remind me of the kids in this day and age who do something illegal, post it on face book and can't understand why the get arrested. Of course the enemy can see, we would not be doing all we can to not be seen. Shucks I learned that in 1961 in Berlin when we faced down the Russians at Check Point Charlie. They would point at us and we would wave back at them so they knew we too could see. I spent five years watching them while they watched us. During my total of nine years in Germany, one in Viet Nam and two in Korea I learned a lot about the "other" guy while they learned about us. Forgive me I digress. Ivan builds some very good aircraft which is why we do our job of building better. Even the Chinese are using Ivan"s stuff. It is always easier to copy the other guys stuff. That is why we will be working against Russian and Chinese versions of the F35 in the future. But we will use it first and by that time have the new improved version capable of sustained sustained super cruise. It is a heat problem thing that needs to be ironed out.



How dare you use common sense.  The detractors aren't prepared for this.  It might make their heads explode.


----------



## I amso IR

Enter the Eagle. In my mind, the Eagle is the air superiority fighter of choice with the F29 Russian bird right on it's heels. It has speed M2.5,range 1200 miles, ceiling 60,000+, rate of climb 60,000+ per minute, armament seemly countless variations, radar upgrades. This aircraft has nothing to be ashamed of. This aircraft has been refined, tweeked and is simply the best there is at this time. The idea that it will be a part of the USAF into 2040 justifies that claim. Not as fast as Lockheeds SR71 but then who is? That there are so many variants of this aircraft proves the versatility, strength and durability of the Eagle. The not so fighterish F35, she is pure interdiction at standoff ranges, over the horizon, and out of harms range. To claim she is a ground support machine is Tomfoolery. That however does not prove that she cannot fight nor inflict serious damage on the enemy. With her envisioned electronics package she will be wild and deadly. The F22 is stealthy, fast and deadly, but is short on numbers. Again, enter the Eagle. And in five or ten years, when Ivan is able to field a comparable aircraft to the F22, it will be to late as the F15 will have carried the day and will have earned it's wings many times over. And at this point, the USAF has over 2000 of them to use and if need be, use them they will.The Navy FA18 is also a very good aircraft but is limited in it's 300 mile range. It carries heavier combat load than the Eagle since it's mission is primarily fleet defense. It has to be able to knock out ships not buildings. It is agile and is able to take care of itself with it's missiles and nose cannon. She is a very good aircraft but is not an F 15 or MIG 29. In all fairness she was never meant to be. So here we are. The Navy and Air Force need a stand off vehicle to protect the fleet and over land airspace. That is what the F35 brings to the battle. They hook up with Fleet and Battle Group combat information center (CIC) and talk. The Air Force F35 hooks up with satellites over the battle area, ground support and ADA and AWACS flying around. Being able to see over the horizons the F35 cans take out targets prior to the targets entering the contested area. They are purely a defensive airplane and were sold as a fighter. And Smilin Jack, being who he is and what he trained for still has visions of scarfs and eye to eye contact. That day is yesterday except in very rare circumstances. The F35 is a force multiplier a tactic used by the Army for years now. The Apache, AH64, is the perfect example. Multiple warhead ICMB's are another along with cannister bombs and artillery warheads. One weapon able to kill many targets. That is why the F35 should never have been designated a fighter, though it can fight should it have to. It's premier quality is to be as unseen as possible. Surprise, an AM29 is about to fly up your rear end. 5,4,3,2,1 poof! Now "the guy on the street" can have a field day on what I have said. I will end with the line I opened with, Enter the Eagle. That bird will make the difference and keep the MIG 29 at bay. It will be one hell of a fight and the better pilot will win. From my point of view, Our Guys better be able  and better than Ivan, as there is no cake walk here. Be the best or poof! Never underestimate the F15.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 189 of them should be able to do the job. As for nations without an air force, why in the world would we need Gen 5 aircraft at all. Yes I am able to read, pro as well con reports. In fact I read a report involving a Naval aviator and Air Force aviator who are 35 drivers. While they lament the software problems and delays, they present a favorable opinion of the aircraft. They feel it is up to the job that is required of it when finally the software is finalized. So honestly, I again say, when completed, the bird will perform as intended. It is not intended to mix it up in the WWll, Smiling Jack fashion, with scarf flying in the breeze. And with today's and tomorrow's smart missiles which are capable of tracking and locking on without human assistance things will be far more mundane. And as with the F22 which flew under the Iranian F14 which had no idea he was there, what can I say? You do not want the system and that is fine. I still say, wait for the end result. If it is not what it is designed to be, I will be among the first to say I screwed the pooch. As far as specs go, I read it is a 1200 mph craft. Service ceiling is thought to be 50,000 ft but not confirmed. It is capable of short super cruise bursts, perhaps 15 min worth. That is why I feel it was an error to give this plane the F prefix. Can it absorb punishment as the A10 does, no. But then on the other hand it is not designed to loiter and provide classic ground support. That is the reason the Army developed the attack helicopter, the AH1. Of course they did that long before the F35 was a gleam in it's daddy's eye. CAS has never been the strong suit of the Air Force. If it had been they would never have dumped the Skyraider or it's type. Fast movers do not do well at ground level, never have and never will. But that is a horse of another color. So lets see what this discussion has accomplished. Nothing is the correct response. Peace, Smilin Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> Actuallly no....AF has alrdy admitted they dont have near enough of them to babysit your piece of crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When operating against the Chinese and Russians, the F-18 and the F-15 won't cut it close up.  While the EF-18G will be in the fight from a very long range, the F-22 won't be enough to handle it.  You keep forgetting that Army and Naval firepower will make a very hostile invoroment for any non stealth bird.  The Naval and ground radar has to be taken out.  And any of the 4th gen fighters will be committing suicide.  If we can't have more F-22s then we need lots and lots of F-35 of the A and C models.
Click to expand...


F-15 simply needs to be up engined to supercruise ability......Never liked F-18...but its brilliants like you who chose it over superTomcat...a proven winner......Stealth is alrdy going way of the dodo with radar advances...F-35 has taken so long to arrive its day is over


----------



## IsaacNewton

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...


Its another ridiculous unwanted unneeded aircraft that is costing 1.5 trillion dollars and will likely cost more than 2 trillion and won't perform as well as the F22. 

The Military-Industrial-Complex is so awash in money they couldn't care less if any of it works, they just want to spend trillions on new shit so they can say they are spending trillions on new shit and see some new crap in a hangar somewhere.

The American people are so damn blind on this waste it is sickening.


----------



## Manonthestreet

SteadyMercury said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "more than enough evidence here". Here where? On the Message Board?
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that, it is impossible to pin down ManOnTheStreet to back up anything he says about the F-35. Most of my interactions with him have been like this:
> 
> MOTS: The F-35 has too much of an IR signature to be stealthy
> SM: What is the F-35's IR signature and how does it compare to other fighters
> MOTS: Go read some, everyone knows
> SM: Tell me then, how are you measuring the F-35s IR signature and how does it compare?
> MOTS: You're ignoring the evidence!
> SM: Then type out the words to tell me the numbers
> MOTS: Experts have measured it!
> (etc.)
Click to expand...

15 pages of links dumbass ...go read


----------



## Indofred

IsaacNewton said:


> The American people are so damn blind on this waste it is sickening.



This does seem to be the case.
Every 'in the know' story I've read on this aircraft suggests it's a disaster waiting to happen, and will put the pilots years behind potential enemy aircraft.
One note came to mind. I see the warthog is being scrapped as part of this project but I see no aircraft even close to the abilities it has in that role.
Aircraft in air to air combat must be upgraded to keep them useful, but in a situation where massive firepower and survivability are needed, the warthog has no equal.
The aircraft is as valid now as it was when the military realised to need for it.


----------



## I amso IR

manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+ 
Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?


----------



## idb

I amso IR said:


> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?


Try paragraphs - they're fun and easy!
It's really hard to read your stuff.



> manonthestreet; a comparison.
> F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700
> Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+
> Range 1600 nm/1800 nm
> Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000
> Crew 2/2.
> There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE.
> 
> I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle.
> Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay.
> Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity.
> 
> My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check.
> 
> Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?


----------



## I amso IR

idb said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> 
> 
> Try paragraphs - they're fun and easy!
> It's really hard to read your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison.
> F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700
> Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+
> Range 1600 nm/1800 nm
> Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000
> Crew 2/2.
> There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE.
> 
> I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle.
> Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay.
> Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity.
> 
> My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check.
> 
> Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sorry bout that. Was not input in that format. Anyhow, simply read and you will get the idea. F14 vs F15. not even close. Also, attempt to go back a few posts and get up to date. As far as paragraphs go, the limits of this message board are lacking. Any how, read and you will understand. The F15 waxes the F14.


----------



## I amso IR

Once again, the F15n will hold the line with the Russian fighters. As in all circumstances, there will be bad results. However, the F15 will prevail if the pilots are properly trained. Ivan builds good stuff, the question is, are the pilots up to proving it. In the hands of American pilots the MIG29 would be devistating, The F15 in the hands of Americans is without doubt a very bad boy, You can talk F35 or whatever you want, but the F15 is one of a kind. It is not Gen 5, no question about that, but it is in the AO and it is deadly and worthy. Russia does not want a contest with the F15.  That spells trouble. And do not forget, we are discussing the abilities of the so called F35. Once again, it is not primarily a fighter. It is a fighter destroyer from an stand off distance enshrouded by stealth. And it can fight if it has to. You can accept what Smiling Jack has to say if that is your desire. But the fact remains, the F15 is the backbone of our defense as the F29 is the Russian backbone of their defense. Both are highly capable and premium fighters.


----------



## I amso IR

idb said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> 
> 
> Try paragraphs - they're fun and easy!
> It's really hard to read your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison.
> F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700
> Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+
> Range 1600 nm/1800 nm
> Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000
> Crew 2/2.
> There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE.
> 
> I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle.
> Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay.
> Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity.
> 
> My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check.
> 
> Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is for IBD, a gold member down New Zealand way, way down. If you are reading this post you have already seen how the post was originally written. So, your comment, while true, is in error. Anyhow, KIWI, nice talking to you. Have a nice summer.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Once again, the F15n will hold the line with the Russian fighters. As in all circumstances, there will be bad results. However, the F15 will prevail if the pilots are properly trained. Ivan builds good stuff, the question is, are the pilots up to proving it. In the hands of American pilots the MIG29 would be devistating, The F15 in the hands of Americans is without doubt a very bad boy, You can talk F35 or whatever you want, but the F15 is one of a kind. It is not Gen 5, no question about that, but it is in the AO and it is deadly and worthy. Russia does not want a contest with the F15.  That spells trouble. And do not forget, we are discussing the abilities of the so called F35. Once again, it is not primarily a fighter. It is a fighter destroyer from an stand off distance enshrouded by stealth. And it can fight if it has to. You can accept what Smiling Jack has to say if that is your desire. But the fact remains, the F15 is the backbone of our defense as the F29 is the Russian backbone of their defense. Both are highly capable and premium fighters.



When the F-15A and the F-16A first came out, the F-14D was in service with just enough numbers to play the games against us.  The F-15 and the F-16 still had a ways to go before they became world beaters.  The F-14D was at the top of the heap.  It took a F-15A with a death wish to keep the F-14 busy with radar meanwhile, the F-16 was trying to sneak in for a dogfight.  The trick was for the F-14 to see the F-16 just before closure.  The F-14 had a real nasty habit of making a turn tighter than anything on earth short of a sparrow by sweeping his wings forward.  He had a ton of energy built up and would use that to then inside the F-16 for one turn.  After that, if the F-16 was still around, the F-14 could no longer turn with the F-16.  

The F-14 no longer got the wonderful upgrades it should have gotten, the airframes were long on the tooth, the cost of operation was way up there.  Meanwhile, the F-15C and the F-16C got the good stuff.  And the F-15 and the F-16 has been getting some really good stuff from that day on.  At one time, those two were the best one two punch in the world.  It's subjective that even today that they still are.  But I find that things have changed.Not with the Russian and Chinese AC but with the ground SAs of all types and flavors.  


We got the Radar and weapons first to blow the various Russian and Chinese birds.  Now, the Russians have caught up in that arena.  The time for either to have non stealth AC in the opening volleys is gone.  We are still one up on them and will continue until about 2025.  

So, do we need more F-22s, I would think so.  But since we won't get them the F-35A/C is an evil necessity.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 189 of them should be able to do the job. As for nations without an air force, why in the world would we need Gen 5 aircraft at all. Yes I am able to read, pro as well con reports. In fact I read a report involving a Naval aviator and Air Force aviator who are 35 drivers. While they lament the software problems and delays, they present a favorable opinion of the aircraft. They feel it is up to the job that is required of it when finally the software is finalized. So honestly, I again say, when completed, the bird will perform as intended. It is not intended to mix it up in the WWll, Smiling Jack fashion, with scarf flying in the breeze. And with today's and tomorrow's smart missiles which are capable of tracking and locking on without human assistance things will be far more mundane. And as with the F22 which flew under the Iranian F14 which had no idea he was there, what can I say? You do not want the system and that is fine. I still say, wait for the end result. If it is not what it is designed to be, I will be among the first to say I screwed the pooch. As far as specs go, I read it is a 1200 mph craft. Service ceiling is thought to be 50,000 ft but not confirmed. It is capable of short super cruise bursts, perhaps 15 min worth. That is why I feel it was an error to give this plane the F prefix. Can it absorb punishment as the A10 does, no. But then on the other hand it is not designed to loiter and provide classic ground support. That is the reason the Army developed the attack helicopter, the AH1. Of course they did that long before the F35 was a gleam in it's daddy's eye. CAS has never been the strong suit of the Air Force. If it had been they would never have dumped the Skyraider or it's type. Fast movers do not do well at ground level, never have and never will. But that is a horse of another color. So lets see what this discussion has accomplished. Nothing is the correct response. Peace, Smilin Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> Actuallly no....AF has alrdy admitted they dont have near enough of them to babysit your piece of crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When operating against the Chinese and Russians, the F-18 and the F-15 won't cut it close up.  While the EF-18G will be in the fight from a very long range, the F-22 won't be enough to handle it.  You keep forgetting that Army and Naval firepower will make a very hostile invoroment for any non stealth bird.  The Naval and ground radar has to be taken out.  And any of the 4th gen fighters will be committing suicide.  If we can't have more F-22s then we need lots and lots of F-35 of the A and C models.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F-15 simply needs to be up engined to supercruise ability......Never liked F-18...but its brilliants like you who chose it over superTomcat...a proven winner......Stealth is alrdy going way of the dodo with radar advances...F-35 has taken so long to arrive its day is over
Click to expand...


As for the F-18, anytime you take a bird and make it a carrier bird, the performance, range, top end, etc. will suffer.  The original YF-17 was just as good as the F-16.  but the F-16 made more sense the the AF since it used the engines used in the F-15.  The YF-17 was redone for carrier duty and all of a sudden, it no longer had the better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio.  The same goes for the F-35.  The A model will outperform the C model every time in payload, thrust to weight, etc..  The only reason the C has more range is that it carries a lot more gas.

The AF is using the EF-18G, teaming it up with the F-22 since the AF really doesn't have a wideband jammer of their own.  The F-35A changes all that.  And the Navy would love to get those EF-18Gs back since they don't have enough of them.  

Not about linking with different Fighters and Bombers.  No, the F-22 cannot link with either the EF-18G or the F-35.  But the flying Command Posts and AWACs can.  And the Command Posts link directly with the ships.  Making the whole sky for about 400 miles or more usable for all Attack and Fighters.  

Now, about attacking those US Carriers.  You have to run the gambit of Aircraft then all those nasty little ships that accompany the carrier task force.  Those nasty little boats are out to about 200 miles.  You get picked up between 200 and 400 miles and have to run the gauntlet.  Unless you are stealth, you are going to get picked up long before you come even within 200 miles of the Carrier.  This includes drones, speed boats, aircraft and missiles.  

The Chinese and the Russians make all kinds of brags.  I don't buy any of them at this time.


----------



## I amso IR

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 189 of them should be able to do the job. As for nations without an air force, why in the world would we need Gen 5 aircraft at all. Yes I am able to read, pro as well con reports. In fact I read a report involving a Naval aviator and Air Force aviator who are 35 drivers. While they lament the software problems and delays, they present a favorable opinion of the aircraft. They feel it is up to the job that is required of it when finally the software is finalized. So honestly, I again say, when completed, the bird will perform as intended. It is not intended to mix it up in the WWll, Smiling Jack fashion, with scarf flying in the breeze. And with today's and tomorrow's smart missiles which are capable of tracking and locking on without human assistance things will be far more mundane. And as with the F22 which flew under the Iranian F14 which had no idea he was there, what can I say? You do not want the system and that is fine. I still say, wait for the end result. If it is not what it is designed to be, I will be among the first to say I screwed the pooch. As far as specs go, I read it is a 1200 mph craft. Service ceiling is thought to be 50,000 ft but not confirmed. It is capable of short super cruise bursts, perhaps 15 min worth. That is why I feel it was an error to give this plane the F prefix. Can it absorb punishment as the A10 does, no. But then on the other hand it is not designed to loiter and provide classic ground support. That is the reason the Army developed the attack helicopter, the AH1. Of course they did that long before the F35 was a gleam in it's daddy's eye. CAS has never been the strong suit of the Air Force. If it had been they would never have dumped the Skyraider or it's type. Fast movers do not do well at ground level, never have and never will. But that is a horse of another color. So lets see what this discussion has accomplished. Nothing is the correct response. Peace, Smilin Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> Actuallly no....AF has alrdy admitted they dont have near enough of them to babysit your piece of crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When operating against the Chinese and Russians, the F-18 and the F-15 won't cut it close up.  While the EF-18G will be in the fight from a very long range, the F-22 won't be enough to handle it.  You keep forgetting that Army and Naval firepower will make a very hostile invoroment for any non stealth bird.  The Naval and ground radar has to be taken out.  And any of the 4th gen fighters will be committing suicide.  If we can't have more F-22s then we need lots and lots of F-35 of the A and C models.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F-15 simply needs to be up engined to supercruise ability......Never liked F-18...but its brilliants like you who chose it over superTomcat...a proven winner......Stealth is alrdy going way of the dodo with radar advances...F-35 has taken so long to arrive its day is over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the F-18, anytime you take a bird and make it a carrier bird, the performance, range, top end, etc. will suffer.  The original YF-17 was just as good as the F-16.  but the F-16 made more sense the the AF since it used the engines used in the F-15.  The YF-17 was redone for carrier duty and all of a sudden, it no longer had the better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio.  The same goes for the F-35.  The A model will outperform the C model every time in payload, thrust to weight, etc..  The only reason the C has more range is that it carries a lot more gas.
> 
> The AF is using the EF-18G, teaming it up with the F-22 since the AF really doesn't have a wideband jammer of their own.  The F-35A changes all that.  And the Navy would love to get those EF-18Gs back since they don't have enough of them.
> 
> Not about linking with different Fighters and Bombers.  No, the F-22 cannot link with either the EF-18G or the F-35.  But the flying Command Posts and AWACs can.  And the Command Posts link directly with the ships.  Making the whole sky for about 400 miles or more usable for all Attack and Fighters.
> 
> Now, about attacking those US Carriers.  You have to run the gambit of Aircraft then all those nasty little ships that accompany the carrier task force.  Those nasty little boats are out to about 200 miles.  You get picked up between 200 and 400 miles and have to run the gauntlet.  Unless you are stealth, you are going to get picked up long before you come even within 200 miles of the Carrier.  This includes drones, speed boats, aircraft and missiles.
> 
> The Chinese and the Russians make all kinds of brags.  I don't buy any of them at this time.
Click to expand...


Good day Daryl, I amso IR here. I enjoy reading your posts as every time I do I pick up on tidbits of info I was not aware of. I read on another source about the heat problem associated with supercruise the other day. That it is a challange is an understatement. Not being able to induct enough flow to cool the engine and the aircraft structure is without doubt a bad situation. The limitations on design which are associated with stealth seem to be a huge factor difficult to overcome. That lends, i think, in part at least, to the "manonthestreet" assertion in #348, that stealth
is becoming moot what with electronics advancements and again design factors. Super cruise it's self is not the problem as we are already there. Being able to design the aircraft to be stealthy is another matter. Can it be done, probably, but the time, cost and reliability are prohibitive. The simple fact that the 35C is burning and damaging the flight deck of carriers is an example. The fact that the airframes are damaged by the intense heat generated in flight is also telling. The fact that the engine is subject to ignite the the compartment on fire when preparing for takeoff is another. I have to think, while I like the 35 concept, perhaps three birds of one flavor is doable, it is one heck of a mouth full. Will it be accomplished, probably, but as already proven it won't be cheap. Considering the financial condition of Russia and China I don't see them be successful any time soon. Your estimate of 2025 in #447 sounds really optimistic to me. That is why I strongly support the F15 and it's variants at this time and see the MIG29 in the same light. No one country, including the US can stand this type of blood loss, in a monetary sense. Just thinkin on my part. Doable yes, but nothing to make a habit of. Perhaps we are simply trying to break the banks of our foe, again. I still like my idea of flooding the sky over these countries with cheap drones with signatures of other aircraft and letting them deplete their ADA and interceptors trying to clear them out. Then go in manned and finish the job.


----------



## HenryBHough

When the dust has settled I feel certain the U.S. military will say they love the examples they have had enough money to purchase.

Both of them.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 189 of them should be able to do the job. As for nations without an air force, why in the world would we need Gen 5 aircraft at all. Yes I am able to read, pro as well con reports. In fact I read a report involving a Naval aviator and Air Force aviator who are 35 drivers. While they lament the software problems and delays, they present a favorable opinion of the aircraft. They feel it is up to the job that is required of it when finally the software is finalized. So honestly, I again say, when completed, the bird will perform as intended. It is not intended to mix it up in the WWll, Smiling Jack fashion, with scarf flying in the breeze. And with today's and tomorrow's smart missiles which are capable of tracking and locking on without human assistance things will be far more mundane. And as with the F22 which flew under the Iranian F14 which had no idea he was there, what can I say? You do not want the system and that is fine. I still say, wait for the end result. If it is not what it is designed to be, I will be among the first to say I screwed the pooch. As far as specs go, I read it is a 1200 mph craft. Service ceiling is thought to be 50,000 ft but not confirmed. It is capable of short super cruise bursts, perhaps 15 min worth. That is why I feel it was an error to give this plane the F prefix. Can it absorb punishment as the A10 does, no. But then on the other hand it is not designed to loiter and provide classic ground support. That is the reason the Army developed the attack helicopter, the AH1. Of course they did that long before the F35 was a gleam in it's daddy's eye. CAS has never been the strong suit of the Air Force. If it had been they would never have dumped the Skyraider or it's type. Fast movers do not do well at ground level, never have and never will. But that is a horse of another color. So lets see what this discussion has accomplished. Nothing is the correct response. Peace, Smilin Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> Actuallly no....AF has alrdy admitted they dont have near enough of them to babysit your piece of crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When operating against the Chinese and Russians, the F-18 and the F-15 won't cut it close up.  While the EF-18G will be in the fight from a very long range, the F-22 won't be enough to handle it.  You keep forgetting that Army and Naval firepower will make a very hostile invoroment for any non stealth bird.  The Naval and ground radar has to be taken out.  And any of the 4th gen fighters will be committing suicide.  If we can't have more F-22s then we need lots and lots of F-35 of the A and C models.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F-15 simply needs to be up engined to supercruise ability......Never liked F-18...but its brilliants like you who chose it over superTomcat...a proven winner......Stealth is alrdy going way of the dodo with radar advances...F-35 has taken so long to arrive its day is over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the F-18, anytime you take a bird and make it a carrier bird, the performance, range, top end, etc. will suffer.  The original YF-17 was just as good as the F-16.  but the F-16 made more sense the the AF since it used the engines used in the F-15.  The YF-17 was redone for carrier duty and all of a sudden, it no longer had the better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio.  The same goes for the F-35.  The A model will outperform the C model every time in payload, thrust to weight, etc..  The only reason the C has more range is that it carries a lot more gas.
> 
> The AF is using the EF-18G, teaming it up with the F-22 since the AF really doesn't have a wideband jammer of their own.  The F-35A changes all that.  And the Navy would love to get those EF-18Gs back since they don't have enough of them.
> 
> Not about linking with different Fighters and Bombers.  No, the F-22 cannot link with either the EF-18G or the F-35.  But the flying Command Posts and AWACs can.  And the Command Posts link directly with the ships.  Making the whole sky for about 400 miles or more usable for all Attack and Fighters.
> 
> Now, about attacking those US Carriers.  You have to run the gambit of Aircraft then all those nasty little ships that accompany the carrier task force.  Those nasty little boats are out to about 200 miles.  You get picked up between 200 and 400 miles and have to run the gauntlet.  Unless you are stealth, you are going to get picked up long before you come even within 200 miles of the Carrier.  This includes drones, speed boats, aircraft and missiles.
> 
> The Chinese and the Russians make all kinds of brags.  I don't buy any of them at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good day Daryl, I amso IR here. I enjoy reading your posts as every time I do I pick up on tidbits of info I was not aware of. I read on another source about the heat problem associated with supercruise the other day. That it is a challange is an understatement. Not being able to induct enough flow to cool the engine and the aircraft structure is without doubt a bad situation. The limitations on design which are associated with stealth seem to be a huge factor difficult to overcome. That lends, i think, in part at least, to the "manonthestreet" assertion in #348, that stealth
> is becoming moot what with electronics advancements and again design factors. Super cruise it's self is not the problem as we are already there. Being able to design the aircraft to be stealthy is another matter. Can it be done, probably, but the time, cost and reliability are prohibitive. The simple fact that the 35C is burning and damaging the flight deck of carriers is an example. The fact that the airframes are damaged by the intense heat generated in flight is also telling. The fact that the engine is subject to ignite the the compartment on fire when preparing for takeoff is another. I have to think, while I like the 35 concept, perhaps three birds of one flavor is doable, it is one heck of a mouth full. Will it be accomplished, probably, but as already proven it won't be cheap. Considering the financial condition of Russia and China I don't see them be successful any time soon. Your estimate of 2025 in #447 sounds really optimistic to me. That is why I strongly support the F15 and it's variants at this time and see the MIG29 in the same light. No one country, including the US can stand this type of blood loss, in a monetary sense. Just thinkin on my part. Doable yes, but nothing to make a habit of. Perhaps we are simply trying to break the banks of our foe, again. I still like my idea of flooding the sky over these countries with cheap drones with signatures of other aircraft and letting them deplete their ADA and interceptors trying to clear them out. Then go in manned and finish the job.
Click to expand...


It took a bit to get me to accept the F-15 over the F-4.  But it finally happened.  So we are locked in our likes until those reasons are just blasted out of the sky.  The F-15 certainly blasted my undying support of the F-4.  But it took it until the early 80s to do it.

Just a quick correction.  You stated the F-35C burns the deck.  You are talking about the F-35B, not the C.  Therein lies the problem.  The worst of the lot (The B Model) is used as a comparison for the other two.  The B is not a replacement for anything other than the AV-8B.  The C model gets larger wings, carrier qualification and more gas.  Otherwise, it and the A (AF Model) shares 70% of all parts.  The B model is closer to 40%.

The problem with Unmanned is that it's going to be too easy to hijack it or at least break the link back to the trailer.  Semi Autotomous is about as good as I care to take it.  True Autonomity is way past anyones pay grade at this point.  And I don't believe it's something you want flying around armed to the teeth.  

The Manned Attack Bird is still the way to go.  It doesn't have to be even in sight of the target it hits.  But it can "Thread the Needle" past the radar sites and make a corridor where the F-15/16/18 can operate.  Not all of the 4th gen fighters will be retired anytime soon.  But we need something in numbers to counteract the nasties out there so they can be used.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less
> 
> 
> 
> F-15SAs and F-15Ks cost about 120 million.
> 
> from Bogdan F-35 Costs Down Despite Worries
> 
> 
> 
> According to figures provided by Bogdan, the average cost-per-unit in low-rate initial production lots six, seven and eight, the last three lots on contract, have fallen like this:
> 
> F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model: $117 million, $112 million, $108 million.
> F-35B "jump-jet" model: $145 million, $137 million, $134 million.
> F-35C carrier variant: $134 million, $130 million, $129 million.
> Those figures Include engines, profit for contractors and adjusts for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to New F-35 Prices A 95M B 102M C 116M Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary prices for the F_35A will be well under 100 million by 2019.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear you explain how a 120 million dollar F-15 costs half an F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can add another 4 million for the SE version.  And then you only get the radar reduction from the front and the sides.  You are still lighting up the Radar from the rear.  Plus, you are still lighting up the IR from all sides.
Click to expand...

Case ya didnt know F-35 doesnt have all around stealth....ooops


----------



## Manonthestreet

I amso IR said:


> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?


I never compared 14 to 15...it was 14 to 18 18 looks like crap stacked up to 14D and worse to Supercat


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less
> 
> 
> 
> F-15SAs and F-15Ks cost about 120 million.
> 
> from Bogdan F-35 Costs Down Despite Worries
> 
> 
> 
> According to figures provided by Bogdan, the average cost-per-unit in low-rate initial production lots six, seven and eight, the last three lots on contract, have fallen like this:
> 
> F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model: $117 million, $112 million, $108 million.
> F-35B "jump-jet" model: $145 million, $137 million, $134 million.
> F-35C carrier variant: $134 million, $130 million, $129 million.
> Those figures Include engines, profit for contractors and adjusts for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to New F-35 Prices A 95M B 102M C 116M Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary prices for the F_35A will be well under 100 million by 2019.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear you explain how a 120 million dollar F-15 costs half an F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can add another 4 million for the SE version.  And then you only get the radar reduction from the front and the sides.  You are still lighting up the Radar from the rear.  Plus, you are still lighting up the IR from all sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Case ya didnt know F-35 doesnt have all around stealth....ooops
Click to expand...


And you know something the rest of us don't?  Now, tell us more.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> 
> 
> I never compared 14 to 15...it was 14 to 18 18 looks like crap stacked up to 14D and worse to Supercat
Click to expand...


Supercat was the F-14D.  Not a lot of them were produced because the system was on it's way out.  It just cost way more than the Navy had to spend.  The F-18 was a budget reality, not the best at anything.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less
> 
> 
> 
> F-15SAs and F-15Ks cost about 120 million.
> 
> from Bogdan F-35 Costs Down Despite Worries
> 
> 
> 
> According to figures provided by Bogdan, the average cost-per-unit in low-rate initial production lots six, seven and eight, the last three lots on contract, have fallen like this:
> 
> F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model: $117 million, $112 million, $108 million.
> F-35B "jump-jet" model: $145 million, $137 million, $134 million.
> F-35C carrier variant: $134 million, $130 million, $129 million.
> Those figures Include engines, profit for contractors and adjusts for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to New F-35 Prices A 95M B 102M C 116M Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary prices for the F_35A will be well under 100 million by 2019.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear you explain how a 120 million dollar F-15 costs half an F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can add another 4 million for the SE version.  And then you only get the radar reduction from the front and the sides.  You are still lighting up the Radar from the rear.  Plus, you are still lighting up the IR from all sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Case ya didnt know F-35 doesnt have all around stealth....ooops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know something the rest of us don't?  Now, tell us more.
Click to expand...

Alrdy been posted multiple times.....read the 15  pages of links or goog it


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> 
> 
> I never compared 14 to 15...it was 14 to 18 18 looks like crap stacked up to 14D and worse to Supercat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supercat was the F-14D.  Not a lot of them were produced because the system was on it's way out.  It just cost way more than the Navy had to spend.  The F-18 was a budget reality, not the best at anything.
Click to expand...


foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gu I'mn-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142


----------



## Manonthestreet

Ooooooops again


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and thats the old version......upgrade it to current specs our Allies are buying and its even more deadly......at what half cost of F-35 if not less
> 
> 
> 
> F-15SAs and F-15Ks cost about 120 million.
> 
> from Bogdan F-35 Costs Down Despite Worries
> 
> 
> 
> According to figures provided by Bogdan, the average cost-per-unit in low-rate initial production lots six, seven and eight, the last three lots on contract, have fallen like this:
> 
> F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model: $117 million, $112 million, $108 million.
> F-35B "jump-jet" model: $145 million, $137 million, $134 million.
> F-35C carrier variant: $134 million, $130 million, $129 million.
> Those figures Include engines, profit for contractors and adjusts for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to New F-35 Prices A 95M B 102M C 116M Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary prices for the F_35A will be well under 100 million by 2019.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear you explain how a 120 million dollar F-15 costs half an F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can add another 4 million for the SE version.  And then you only get the radar reduction from the front and the sides.  You are still lighting up the Radar from the rear.  Plus, you are still lighting up the IR from all sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Case ya didnt know F-35 doesnt have all around stealth....ooops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know something the rest of us don't?  Now, tell us more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alrdy been posted multiple times.....read the 15  pages of links or goog it
Click to expand...


There has been about 15 opinions posted.  Now, get us facts.  I am sure that you can come up with something.  Opinions are like.......


----------



## Manonthestreet

Facts are alrdy in this thread....as stated ...not posting thngs over and over for dumbass who wont read or just asks same stupid question over and over


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> 
> 
> I never compared 14 to 15...it was 14 to 18 18 looks like crap stacked up to 14D and worse to Supercat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supercat was the F-14D.  Not a lot of them were produced because the system was on it's way out.  It just cost way more than the Navy had to spend.  The F-18 was a budget reality, not the best at anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gu I'mn-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142
Click to expand...


All that was was the upgrading to the existing F-14D and upgrading the F-14B to the same specs.  Things like the F-110 engine didn't exist at the time and wouldn't for the next 10 to 20 years.  IN reality, making those upgrades (the ones that were available at the time) was already done to the F-14D.  Your article is something like Luft46.  

The facts remain that the B models were long on the tooth and the D was too expensive for the time.  Meanwhile, a cheaper alternative of super sizing the Bug was realized.  You may wish to stop just making it up as you go.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Facts are alrdy in this thread....as stated ...not posting thngs over and over for dumbass who wont read or just asks same stupid question over and over



Tranlation:  You are just making shit up again.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Riiighhhttt   LLMMAAOOOOOOOO   or maybe its as I posted.........


----------



## Manonthestreet

BTW if libs win in Canada F-35 sales to them are toast......Australia may not be far behind


----------



## Manonthestreet

Chinese and Russian Radars On Track To See Through U.S. Stealth Chinese and Russian Radars On Track To See Through U.S. Stealth - USNI News That was a yr ago......which means when they do supercruise will be a must........ooooooops


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> BTW if libs win in Canada F-35 sales to them are toast......Australia may not be far behind



Ordure happens.  Reminds me of your posts


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Chinese and Russian Radars On Track To See Through U.S. Stealth Chinese and Russian Radars On Track To See Through U.S. Stealth - USNI News That was a yr ago......which means when they do supercruise will be a must........ooooooops



May, Might and Maybe comes up over and over in your cite.  Break out the Phasers and Photon Torpedoes.  Oh, and beam me up scotty.


----------



## Manonthestreet

which you cant refute so resort to asking the same question a million times


----------



## Manonthestreet

The only thing remarkable in General Hostage’s assessment of the F-35 is that anyone should find his comments remarkable. It is refreshing that the head of the USAF’s Air Combat Command should make such frank remarks.

He is right on the money. The F-35 is a bomb truck. It was designed by Lockheed to be inferior in every respect to the F-22. It was anticipated that the USAF would have a fleet of upwards of 800 F-22s to provide cover for the F-35. President Obama turned off the F-22 tap at just 170-airframes.

What was interesting, and went unnoticed or at least unmentioned in the media, was how the F-35 was transformed into a world-beating fighter with the cancelation of the F-22 contract.  
The F-22 has an all-aspect stealth masking. The F-35’s stealth masking is frontal aspect only. Lockheed executives have defended that by saying that the F-35 is only intended to go in low, straight to the target, and straight
out again. It’s not a fighter. It’s a bomb truck.


let that cat out of the bag. The Russians already know that all they have to do to counter the F-35 is force it to manoeuvre and then it’s dead meat.

The Russians have also figured out that because the F-35 has no rear aspect stealth cloaking and because it lacks supercruise it will be easy to run down and kill as it attempts to egress hostile airspace.

Stealth technology is “perishable.” That assessment by American and Israeli defence planners appeared in Aviation Week last year. They maintained it would be countered within five years. Given the advances the Russians have made in sensor technology in both their aircraft and BVR missiles that’s probably accurate. Just Face It - The F-35 Is A “Bomb Truck” 
Posted more than I should cause I know ya wont click the link and it destroys F-35 in every way possible.


----------



## idb

I amso IR said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison. F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700   Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+  Range 1600 nm/1800 nm   Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000   Crew 2/2.  There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE. I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle. Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay. Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity. My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check. Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> 
> 
> Try paragraphs - they're fun and easy!
> It's really hard to read your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manonthestreet; a comparison.
> F14BD / F15SE  Thrust 54,000/58,000   Weight 43.600/31,700
> Speed Mach 2+/Mach 2.5+
> Svc Ceiling 50000+/60000+
> Range 1600 nm/1800 nm
> Max Load 20,397 lbs / 23,000
> Crew 2/2.
> There you go Buzz. The first number is the F14BD the second number is the F15SE.
> 
> I admit the 14 was a terrific bird. You accuse me of dissing it and I have not done so. However, it cannot and never will be the equal of the Eagle.
> Secondly, I can read, much to your dismay.
> Third, try to act your age with grace and dignity.
> 
> My point is the Eagle will carry us beyond today in tandum with the F22/F35 and will keep the MIG 29, which is the Russian threat for now, in check.
> 
> Now I will ask you, Can you read or simply see red every time someone responds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is for IBD, a gold member down New Zealand way, way down. If you are reading this post you have already seen how the post was originally written. So, your comment, while true, is in error. Anyhow, KIWI, nice talking to you. Have a nice summer.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I find your style very difficult to follow.
The paragraphed version was my suggestion to make it easier to read.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Upgraded future versions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could replace the stealthy jet’s Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan with a new adaptive cycle engine. The current F135 engine is at the limits of its capabilities and can’t push the jet out to the outer edges of its airframes capabilities—especially at low speeds. 
Basically, the F-35 airframe gets too hot at lower flight levels because of the limitations of the F135—which has to run at high temperatures to generate maximum power. The F135 generates 28,000 lbs of thrust normally, but produces over 43,000 lbs of thrust with the afterburner engaged. “Today the F-35 has flight restrictions at low altitude because of thermal management,” an industry source told The National Interest. F-35 Needs a Bigger, More Powerful Engine

under powered to boot.......


----------



## Manonthestreet

What is the message for Canada when America's two main customers for the F-35 - the US Air Force and the US Navy - are already voicing complaints about the inadequacies of the warplane and clamouring for another warplane to take its place? Bear in mind that these latest complaints - the inadequate weapons load and the obsolescence of the F-35's stealth cloaking - are just two of the recognized drawbacks. Add to that, when the F-35 does run into the opposition, its limited fuel load and lack of supercruise could leave it at the mercy of modern fighter interceptors except they're not likely to be very merciful. The Disaffected Lib: The F-35 Also Comes Up Short in the Eyes of the US Navy


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> which you cant refute so resort to asking the same question a million times



I am looking for actual proof from you.  You make SCIFI statements and expect the rest of us to accept it.  Opinions are not proof.  Opinions are like..........


----------



## Manonthestreet

Inferior in almost every way.....but dont worry magic happens.....thats your arguement. Specs dont lie......they are cold hard facts.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> What is the message for Canada when America's two main customers for the F-35 - the US Air Force and the US Navy - are already voicing complaints about the inadequacies of the warplane and clamouring for another warplane to take its place? Bear in mind that these latest complaints - the inadequate weapons load and the obsolescence of the F-35's stealth cloaking - are just two of the recognized drawbacks. Add to that, when the F-35 does run into the opposition, its limited fuel load and lack of supercruise could leave it at the mercy of modern fighter interceptors except they're not likely to be very merciful. The Disaffected Lib: The F-35 Also Comes Up Short in the Eyes of the US Navy



So you pick a cite from over a year ago that was compiled from 3 to 4 years before that and present it as fact today.  I can imagine you played the same cards over the F-22.  Many did.  Today, the F-22 is completely invisible to the Russian S-300 and soon to be coming online S-400 radar.  The SU-30 can't see it either.  Since the SU-35 is based on the SU-30 then there is no help there either.  

Canada may or may not buy the F-35.  I guess your host country is just too poor to afford things.  Guess I am more fortunate.


----------



## Manonthestreet

On contrary I defended F-22....oooops


----------



## Manonthestreet

We wont be able to afford it either......It wasnt designed to kill the enemy,,,it was designed to kill our fighter capability.......Cant wait to have just a bomb truck as our only "fighter",,,,,,


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> We wont be able to afford it either......It wasnt designed to kill the enemy,,,it was designed to kill our fighter capability.......Cant wait to have just a bomb truck as our only "fighter",,,,,,



Then our job is almost done.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> On contrary I defended F-22....oooops



And your country can't have any......nyuk, nyuk


----------



## shadow355

The F-35 cannot out perform the F-16


Leaked F-35 Report Confirms Serious Air Combat Deficiencies


--------------------------------------------

Upgrade, flight control and computer software problems ; as well as unreliable components.

Pentagon: Here are all the problems with the F-35 - Business Insider



--------------------------------------------------------------------


My bet is, and will always be........ on the F/A-18












    Long live the F/A-18 Super Hornet.


      Shadow 355


----------



## Daryl Hunt

shadow355 said:


> The F-35 cannot out perform the F-16
> 
> 
> Leaked F-35 Report Confirms Serious Air Combat Deficiencies
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Upgrade, flight control and computer software problems ; as well as unreliable components.
> 
> Pentagon: Here are all the problems with the F-35 - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> My bet is, and will always be........ on the F/A-18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long live the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
> 
> 
> Shadow 355



Just how many times are you going to use the same outdated report.  I do notice that the date of the report versus the date of the actual test is different.  The real flight was in 2014, not 2015.  I notice that it condemns all F-35s instead of just the AF-2 Test Bird that was actually used in the test.

Once again, the report is defrocked.  Come up with something new like the bad the seat ejectors being faulty.  I imagine that it's being addressed right now.  If you wait another year to start harping on it then you will too late.  So get on the stick.

As for the F-18C/D  those are the models that are to be replaced by the F-35C.  Just like you take the AF-1/2 and use them for all F-35s, you are using the F-18C/D for all F-18s.  Newsflash, Cupcake:  The life of a Carrier Born Fighter is the roughest life a fighter can do and their life expectancy is lower.  The C/Ds need replacement.  It's a good time for the USN to pick up a bunch of F-35Cs to augment their EF-18G and F-19E/Fs.  The USN is going Gah Gah over the F-35Cs they already have and so is the RN.  You leave out all this and still harp on a test from over a year ago on a Test Bird.  

Canada can't afford many of the F-35s so you use your own countries lack of funds to bad mouth the Lightning II.  The US can't afford NOT to have them and neither can Britain.  These two do the majority of the heavy lifting for NATO and Asia.

Every day,  you tripe doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


----------



## shadow355

Daryl Hunt said:


> shadow355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 cannot out perform the F-16
> 
> 
> Leaked F-35 Report Confirms Serious Air Combat Deficiencies
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Upgrade, flight control and computer software problems ; as well as unreliable components.
> 
> Pentagon: Here are all the problems with the F-35 - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> My bet is, and will always be........ on the F/A-18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long live the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
> 
> 
> Shadow 355
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many times are you going to use the same outdated report.  I do notice that the date of the report versus the date of the actual test is different.  The real flight was in 2014, not 2015.  I notice that it condemns all F-35s instead of just the AF-2 Test Bird that was actually used in the test.
> 
> Once again, the report is defrocked.  Come up with something new like the bad the seat ejectors being faulty.  I imagine that it's being addressed right now.  If you wait another year to start harping on it then you will too late.  So get on the stick.
> 
> As for the F-18C/D  those are the models that are to be replaced by the F-35C.  Just like you take the AF-1/2 and use them for all F-35s, you are using the F-18C/D for all F-18s.  Newsflash, Cupcake:  The life of a Carrier Born Fighter is the roughest life a fighter can do and their life expectancy is lower.  The C/Ds need replacement.  It's a good time for the USN to pick up a bunch of F-35Cs to augment their EF-18G and F-19E/Fs.  The USN is going Gah Gah over the F-35Cs they already have and so is the RN.  You leave out all this and still harp on a test from over a year ago on a Test Bird.
> 
> Canada can't afford many of the F-35s so you use your own countries lack of funds to bad mouth the Lightning II.  The US can't afford NOT to have them and neither can Britain.  These two do the majority of the heavy lifting for NATO and Asia.
> 
> Every day,  you tripe doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...

 

Ok. I realize you are trying to insinuate an argument. But one rebuttal.

The F-35 is inferior. That is the fact, point blank. The F-35 was manufactured when it did not need to be, because we have the F-22.

The F/A-18 was manufactured, then the whole manufacturing process went backwards with the F-35. The F-35 was put on the assembly line, when it was not needed as I see it. The F-35 was a cash cow for Government Contractors. The F-35 was nothing but guaranteed income, money in the bank, a steady investment - and Congress, as well as the Military failed to see that. The GAO report, which I reviewed...not read thoroughly - speaks loudly.

The F-35 was an item for the Military; which Government Contractors could make money on. Sooooooo, the F-22 and the F-35 "Will age" about the same time - so both will need replacing...at about the same time. Expensive. UNLESS a better fighter is designed and built to sell to the US Taxpayers, saying that it will be much better than the F-35 that was just sold to them.

The A-10 is an outstanding, and very basic ground attack aircraft. Superbly well at assisting troops with Tactical Air support, or busting enemy vehicles and armor. the A-10 does not need to be some super aircraft capable of performing mythical feats. It needs to come into the battle space, assist allied and coalition forces - perform its mission, and then exit the "A.O"  ( Area of Operations ). The A-10 "Warthog" has proven itself time, after time, after time - and has made it "Home" limping from bullet holes, when other aircraft would have crashed. The A-10 has saved countless pilots. It does not have to be scrapped, Congress should fund the money to keep the assembly line open and running for the A-10. The F-35  was also designed to perform the air to ground mission --->BUT what can the F-35 carry...and how much ; compared to the A-10. What about maneuverability = which aircraft maneuvers ( can dance the dance ) better at 2500 feet AGL ( Above Ground Level ). Again-----> my bet is on the A-10 for ground attack and support. The design for the A-10 is old, but it is still a very capable and versatile aircraft, proven to be able to perform its mission for decades to come.

  It is not hard to figure out that the F/A-18  ( especially the C&D models), as well as the F-22......Rules the sky.

The A-10 is, and will always be------> King of ground support.



                Shadow 355


----------



## shadow355

longknife said:


> It is a very serious problem........
> 
> They got what they should've expected.


 

 Lockheed seen a cash cow is what they seen. Money-Money-Money, and that is all it is about !

 They seen dollar signs, and their eyes lit up. Lockheed simply seen........Government Dollars.


            Shadow 355


----------



## Daryl Hunt

shadow355 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shadow355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 cannot out perform the F-16
> 
> 
> Leaked F-35 Report Confirms Serious Air Combat Deficiencies
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Upgrade, flight control and computer software problems ; as well as unreliable components.
> 
> Pentagon: Here are all the problems with the F-35 - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> My bet is, and will always be........ on the F/A-18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long live the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
> 
> 
> Shadow 355
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many times are you going to use the same outdated report.  I do notice that the date of the report versus the date of the actual test is different.  The real flight was in 2014, not 2015.  I notice that it condemns all F-35s instead of just the AF-2 Test Bird that was actually used in the test.
> 
> Once again, the report is defrocked.  Come up with something new like the bad the seat ejectors being faulty.  I imagine that it's being addressed right now.  If you wait another year to start harping on it then you will too late.  So get on the stick.
> 
> As for the F-18C/D  those are the models that are to be replaced by the F-35C.  Just like you take the AF-1/2 and use them for all F-35s, you are using the F-18C/D for all F-18s.  Newsflash, Cupcake:  The life of a Carrier Born Fighter is the roughest life a fighter can do and their life expectancy is lower.  The C/Ds need replacement.  It's a good time for the USN to pick up a bunch of F-35Cs to augment their EF-18G and F-19E/Fs.  The USN is going Gah Gah over the F-35Cs they already have and so is the RN.  You leave out all this and still harp on a test from over a year ago on a Test Bird.
> 
> Canada can't afford many of the F-35s so you use your own countries lack of funds to bad mouth the Lightning II.  The US can't afford NOT to have them and neither can Britain.  These two do the majority of the heavy lifting for NATO and Asia.
> 
> Every day,  you tripe doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I realize you are trying to insinuate an argument. But one rebuttal.
> 
> The F-35 is inferior. That is the fact, point blank. The F-35 was manufactured when it did not need to be, because we have the F-22.
> 
> The F/A-18 was manufactured, then the whole manufacturing process went backwards with the F-35. The F-35 was put on the assembly line, when it was not needed as I see it. The F-35 was a cash cow for Government Contractors. The F-35 was nothing but guaranteed income, money in the bank, a steady investment - and Congress, as well as the Military failed to see that. The GAO report, which I reviewed...not read thoroughly - speaks loudly.
> 
> The F-35 was an item for the Military; which Government Contractors could make money on. Sooooooo, the F-22 and the F-35 "Will age" about the same time - so both will need replacing...at about the same time. Expensive. UNLESS a better fighter is designed and built to sell to the US Taxpayers, saying that it will be much better than the F-35 that was just sold to them.
> 
> The A-10 is an outstanding, and very basic ground attack aircraft. Superbly well at assisting troops with Tactical Air support, or busting enemy vehicles and armor. the A-10 does not need to be some super aircraft capable of performing mythical feats. It needs to come into the battle space, assist allied and coalition forces - perform its mission, and then exit the "A.O"  ( Area of Operations ). The A-10 "Warthog" has proven itself time, after time, after time - and has made it "Home" limping from bullet holes, when other aircraft would have crashed. The A-10 has saved countless pilots. It does not have to be scrapped, Congress should fund the money to keep the assembly line open and running for the A-10. The F-35  was also designed to perform the air to ground mission --->BUT what can the F-35 carry...and how much ; compared to the A-10. What about maneuverability = which aircraft maneuvers ( can dance the dance ) better at 2500 feet AGL ( Above Ground Level ). Again-----> my bet is on the A-10 for ground attack and support. The design for the A-10 is old, but it is still a very capable and versatile aircraft, proven to be able to perform its mission for decades to come.
> 
> It is not hard to figure out that the F/A-18  ( especially the C&D models), as well as the F-22......Rules the sky.
> 
> The A-10 is, and will always be------> King of ground support.
> 
> 
> 
> Shadow 355
Click to expand...


Life expectancy of an A-10 in todays battlefield is measured in seconds.  Life expectancy of a F-18C/D is also measured in hours since there is a lot more distance involved.  But the results are the same.  Unless they both have something else ripping air superiority first.

The problem with the F-22 is range.  It's worthless to the USN.  We can't be pulling tankers off of the Nuclear Bombers to support a large contingent of F-22s.  The Navy has to use what they brought with them.  As wonderful as the EF-18G is, it still requires fighters out ahead of it to survive.  When those fighters are lost, the EF-18G has a huge Shoot Me sign on it.  Hence the need for the F-35C.

In the AF, the A-10 is dead in the first seconds it enters a contested area.  If the big radar sites don't get it, the shoulder fired grunt manpads will.  

These aren't just Aircraft losses, they have pilots in them.  You seem to forget that.

Now, about the F-22.  It's benefited greatly from the F-35 program.  Those costs aren't figured on the cost of the F-22 but against the cost of the F-35.  Let's just say that we actually start building more F-22s.  They might get the cost down to 150mil each instead of 250mil each if enough are built.  Meanwhile, the F-35A model for the AF will end up costing between 80 to 85 mil each when it goes into full production.  That is less than the most modern fighter from Europe that has long reach.  IN fact, the F-15 has ballooned to over 115Mil each and it flies with a huge shoot me sign on it.  

Bean counting, the F-35 becomes quite a deal in comparison.  And that has been the biggest gripe about it.  When it is in production by the thousands, the cost drops dramatically.  

The ONLY reason the A-10 is used for CAS is that the Army misuses their own CAS.  The Apache is used for everything But CAS.  The Marines don't have a dedicated CAS fixed wing aircraft.  They use their AH-1W/Z for that.  In fact, the ground controls the Marine CAS like it should.  The F-18s are used to backup the Cobras.  While the army uses their AHs like roving cowboys, the Marines use theirs to get the job done.  It doesn't matter how good your AHs are if your ground troops are being chewed up on the ground because they don't have adequate CAS.  The A-10 has never been the answer.  The answer is for the Army to change it's doctrine.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

shadow355 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very serious problem........
> 
> They got what they should've expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed seen a cash cow is what they seen. Money-Money-Money, and that is all it is about !
> 
> They seen dollar signs, and their eyes lit up. Lockheed simply seen........Government Dollars.
> 
> 
> Shadow 355
Click to expand...


Ever hear a term , "Free Trade".  Or how about "Capitalism".  The only reason for any of this is that you want to save the A-10.  Newsflash, cupcake, the A-10 wouldn't last 10 minutes over syria with the introduction of the S-300 and the Russian provided Manpads.  The Army has green flag.  Earlier this year, only two F-35A models were used in Green Flag.  They not only took out the ground targets but lived.  Last years Green Flag, the F-16/A-10 combo had a high attrition rate.  You drop down below 10K feet and all the rules change.  The average Grunt can take your bird out if he's equipped properly.  Not every grunt will have those fancy Manpads but each unit will have at least one.  Making the A-10 and the F-16 have to stay at 20k feet for it's attack.  The A-10 really sucks at 20K feet for an attack because it lacks the really good stuff to target that far away.  The F-16 fares a bit better but still not accurate enough.  

There would be to  many blue on green attacks.  And the A-10 already has the highest rate of Blue on Green fatalities of all.  If you don't believe this, just ask a Limey after an A-10 makes a single pass while firing that gun.  The A-10 won't be aware of it's mistake until AFTER the first run.

You can't save a 40 year old Aircraft.  It's gone as soon as something comes along to replace it.  Again, I think the Army needs to do a rethink on the utilization of the AH-64.  It can do CAS without getting itself in trouble since it can see the enemy but the enemy can't see it.  One of the reasons that the Army is pressing so hard to keep the A-10 is that they don't wish to look like complete idiots with the AH doctrine.  Too late, they are already looking like idiots.


----------



## I amso IR

So, today in the news we have seen a need for the F35 lurking about behind the scene. A Russian built MIG 29 cornered eight Turkish F 16's in Turkish airspace, locked his radar and missles on at least one of the F16's for four and one half minutes. Had the F 35 been available it could have sent the MIG 29 down or at least chased him away from the eight F 16's. I mean with eight to one odds, he had them cornered. So maybe the F 35 is a good idea as we can then help our allies out when they have allowed themselves to be boxed in by overwhelming force. Had an F 35 eliminated the threat, a pathway to the battle would be opened and eight more 16's from Turkey could join the fight and hopefully gain a victory. Our allies deserve the F35 taking their backs. Aside from the Turkish element and my obvious sarcasm, there is a need for the aircraft and from this humiliating fiasco we see what it is. Kudos to the Ivan pilot.


----------



## HenryBHough

Were we to assume the F35 is all the things all the people who had their paws on it want it to be it remains that it will be totally useless so long as we have only weak-kneed apologists running the military.

Or is there something built into the F35 to overcome that?  Y'know, so it can actually be used for something other than job creation.


----------



## I amso IR

HenryBHough said:


> Were we to assume the F35 is all the things all the people who had their paws on it want it to be it remains that it will be totally useless so long as we have only weak-kneed apologists running the military.
> 
> Or is there something built into the F35 to overcome that?  Y'know, so it can actually be used for something other than job creation.



IamsoIR replies;  HBH I understand exactly what you say. I would wish/hope that the F 35 would at least perform well in that role of taking heat away from other aircraft as is it is designed to do. I simply found the original article from which I gleaned my information useful in presenting one of the roles the F 35 is to be used. I admit showing a given amount of disrespect towards the 8 pilots of the F16's as well as taking a veiled jab at the leadership which prevented those Turkish pilots from taking the 29 out. Implicit in my comments is that we spend the money we do on defense and then fail to act when we need to. And Ivan is aware of that lack of will also or they would never have lit up the aircraft while inside Turkish airspace. I agree with you in many respects I believe. But I feel there is a place for an aircraft which can assist in maintaining air superiority while being distant from the actual engagement. Once proven and operational, will we have the strength to use it, that is the question of the century. If this past encounter is any indicator of that resolve, then the F35 will be a total waste of our money. Again, 8 to1 and "we" are the odd man out. Perhaps the 16's we not armed, that would not surprise me. I know from personal experience the US will put it's forces in harms way, unarmed. An M1 or M14 and no ammunition nor bayonet. Good talking to you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> So, today in the news we have seen a need for the F35 lurking about behind the scene. A Russian built MIG 29 cornered eight Turkish F 16's in Turkish airspace, locked his radar and missles on at least one of the F16's for four and one half minutes. Had the F 35 been available it could have sent the MIG 29 down or at least chased him away from the eight F 16's. I mean with eight to one odds, he had them cornered. So maybe the F 35 is a good idea as we can then help our allies out when they have allowed themselves to be boxed in by overwhelming force. Had an F 35 eliminated the threat, a pathway to the battle would be opened and eight more 16's from Turkey could join the fight and hopefully gain a victory. Our allies deserve the F35 taking their backs. Aside from the Turkish element and my obvious sarcasm, there is a need for the aircraft and from this humiliating fiasco we see what it is. Kudos to the Ivan pilot.



Those F-16s weren't helpless.  They could have played the game.  But the area is so hot right now, only the stupid russkies will play those games.  The Turks are flying older less capable F-16s while the Russian was flying a Mig-29M which is one of the newest versions.  Try that against a Saudi or a US F-16 and get a big surprise.


----------



## I amso IR

Daryl Hunt said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, today in the news we have seen a need for the F35 lurking about behind the scene. A Russian built MIG 29 cornered eight Turkish F 16's in Turkish airspace, locked his radar and missles on at least one of the F16's for four and one half minutes. Had the F 35 been available it could have sent the MIG 29 down or at least chased him away from the eight F 16's. I mean with eight to one odds, he had them cornered. So maybe the F 35 is a good idea as we can then help our allies out when they have allowed themselves to be boxed in by overwhelming force. Had an F 35 eliminated the threat, a pathway to the battle would be opened and eight more 16's from Turkey could join the fight and hopefully gain a victory. Our allies deserve the F35 taking their backs. Aside from the Turkish element and my obvious sarcasm, there is a need for the aircraft and from this humiliating fiasco we see what it is. Kudos to the Ivan pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those F-16s weren't helpless.  They could have played the game.  But the area is so hot right now, only the stupid russkies will play those games.  The Turks are flying older less capable F-16s while the Russian was flying a Mig-29M which is one of the newest versions.  Try that against a Saudi or a US F-16 and get a big surprise.
Click to expand...


Hello Daryl. Please see my reply to HBH above. Just pointing out one use for the F35, nothing more. The "russkies" play that game because they can and know it. And frankly, those 16's could be from the bone yard in Arizona, no "stupid russkie" is going to accept those odds if he knows those dogs will fight and bite. Good hearing from you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, today in the news we have seen a need for the F35 lurking about behind the scene. A Russian built MIG 29 cornered eight Turkish F 16's in Turkish airspace, locked his radar and missles on at least one of the F16's for four and one half minutes. Had the F 35 been available it could have sent the MIG 29 down or at least chased him away from the eight F 16's. I mean with eight to one odds, he had them cornered. So maybe the F 35 is a good idea as we can then help our allies out when they have allowed themselves to be boxed in by overwhelming force. Had an F 35 eliminated the threat, a pathway to the battle would be opened and eight more 16's from Turkey could join the fight and hopefully gain a victory. Our allies deserve the F35 taking their backs. Aside from the Turkish element and my obvious sarcasm, there is a need for the aircraft and from this humiliating fiasco we see what it is. Kudos to the Ivan pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those F-16s weren't helpless.  They could have played the game.  But the area is so hot right now, only the stupid russkies will play those games.  The Turks are flying older less capable F-16s while the Russian was flying a Mig-29M which is one of the newest versions.  Try that against a Saudi or a US F-16 and get a big surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Daryl. Please see my reply to HBH above. Just pointing out one use for the F35, nothing more. The "russkies" play that game because they can and know it. And frankly, those 16's could be from the bone yard in Arizona, no "stupid russkie" is going to accept those odds if he knows those dogs will fight and bite. Good hearing from you.
Click to expand...


We need to have bright leaders who can actually lead at all levels.  The F-35, by itself (like all other hardware) is only as good as the leaders.  I lost friends because of the LBJ/Westmorland Doctrine.  Nixon and Abrams changed that.  But it took 4 years of near suicide for Military Pilots before that would happen.Our Pilots and Ground Crews are the best trained in the World.  

Most have no idea how the Sequester has hurt out Military.  If they don't come up with an agreement for military spending and do pass the rest of the budget, the Sequester comes into play.  One of the reasons that the A-10 and many of the F-15s are on the chopping block is that there isn't enough funding to do the training along with the lack of spare parts to keep us the #1 AF and Navy in the world.  Now, add to the fact that those birds on the chopping block are at least 30 to 40 years old.  Life of a Fighter and an Attack Bird is much harder than a Cargo, Tanker of Bomber bird.  And when you add in Carrier duty, these birds are rode hard and put away wet.

Hangar Queens are definately taboo but every branch has them.


----------



## Manonthestreet

World’s Most Expensive Jet Somehow Gets Worse World’s Most Expensive Jet Somehow Gets Worse 
Damaging, because the military and F-35-maker Lockheed Martin have increasingly sold the F-35 as a sort of “flying computer” whose software can outthink enemy pilots even when the enemy’s own planes fly faster, maneuver better and carry more weaponry than the F-35 does.

The stealth fighter’s software is its last possible claim to being a first-class warplane. If the F-35’s code doesn’t work, then neither does the F-35. Saddled with thousands of dysfunctional F-35s, the Pentagon could lose command of the air.
That would be 0 combat rdy.......


----------



## Manonthestreet

The U.S. May Build 500 Jets Before Finding Out If the F-35 Works The U.S. May Build 500 Jets Before Finding Out If the F-35 Works Talk about Russian Roulette


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> World’s Most Expensive Jet Somehow Gets Worse World’s Most Expensive Jet Somehow Gets Worse
> Damaging, because the military and F-35-maker Lockheed Martin have increasingly sold the F-35 as a sort of “flying computer” whose software can outthink enemy pilots even when the enemy’s own planes fly faster, maneuver better and carry more weaponry than the F-35 does.
> 
> The stealth fighter’s software is its last possible claim to being a first-class warplane. If the F-35’s code doesn’t work, then neither does the F-35. Saddled with thousands of dysfunctional F-35s, the Pentagon could lose command of the air.
> That would be 0 combat rdy.......



Macnamar crammed the F-111 down DODs throats.  They made a fighter that couldn't fight and was too large for a carrier.  If found a home due to coding and went on to be a bangup Bomber, Electronic Warfare and Wild Weasel.  

To date, the F-35 fires it's gun (A version) and fires the Aim-9X along with the Amraams.  IT's already hard to see due to it's stealth qualities including spoofing, hiding, laying silent and shooting targets on both the air and the ground undetected.  The A model already can accurately drop small diameter GBUs.  Now, exactly what are you seeing that the rest of us aren't?  Be specific and use current information instead information more than 3 years old.


----------



## Manonthestreet

No it was worth something because it could carry huge payload fast......F-35 can't do anything ........


----------



## Manonthestreet

To date only thing f35 can do is fail and fall further and further behind schedule


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> No it was worth something because it could carry huge payload fast......F-35 can't do anything ........



I am so glad you are back.  We are getting a kick out of the F-35 kicking your ass.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Lllmmaaaoooo.    Only in lib world does fail = success


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Lllmmaaaoooo.    Only in lib world does fail = success



Another lie on your part.  I am not  a Liberal.  I am an old Lincoln/Teddy/Eisenhower Republican.  From a time when the GOP WAS a Grand Ol Party before you criminals hijacked it.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

The Military has to have new shiny things believe me I know. They should stick with a proven platforms. No pilot I know wants to get rid of the the A-10 and the ground pounders definitely don't want it replaced.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Military has to have new shiny things believe me I know. They should stick with a proven platforms. No pilot I know wants to get rid of the the A-10 and the ground pounders definitely don't want it replaced.
Click to expand...


I know a ton of pilots that came from the A-10 to the F-16.  There is not a chance in hell of them wanting to go back after the Lawn Dart's first flight. (USAF Retired Member).

Now, about proven.  What's been proven is that Syria is just too far away to depend on the A-10.  Instead, they have installed a pod on the B-52 and are installing them on B-1s (one squadron was pulled and headed back to mods) and they can hit within a few feet of the bad guy. 

It also can't be found, seen and you start blowing up without knowing where the hell it came from.  That goes for a2a and a2g.  What's the safest gunfight to be in?  One where your enemy is out in the open and you are firing from cover.  What's the dumbest way to do a gunfight?  Be the one in the open.


----------



## Indofred

With this issue, I thing we have to consider history.
How many aircraft advertised as the best thing since sliced bread had such terrible reviews before they went into service?
Forum posts are one thing, but how about serious expert opinion? and there seems to be a good few worried about the thing.


----------



## Manonthestreet

trump for President so he can pronounce the dead dead....before it kills our pilots


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Indofred said:


> With this issue, I thing we have to consider history.
> How many aircraft advertised as the best thing since sliced bread had such terrible reviews before they went into service?
> Forum posts are one thing, but how about serious expert opinion? and there seems to be a good few worried about the thing.



F-22, F-15 to name just two.  I am sure there others if I cared to research it.  I went through the teething problems of the F-15 and it was a dog at first.  It grew into what it became.  Not over night.  It didn't reach forward operational status until 1978.  Until then, it was at stateside bases being ironed out.  Much of the same was said about it..  It was too expensive, it wasn't any better than the F-4, etc..  And this was said by some thought to be "Experts" in the field by people like you.  They were proven wrong.  

Then there is the F-22.  Now  you people are crying that they took it off of production.  Hell, you cried that it should be removed because of cost, performance and more.  You'd bitch if you were hung with a new rope.


----------



## Manonthestreet

You post a lot of shit with nothing but your lying say so


----------



## williepete

Manonthestreet said:


> You post a lot of shit with nothing but your lying say so





_"People who know don't talk. People who talk don't know."





_


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> You post a lot of shit with nothing but your lying say so



I can tell when you back yourself into a corner.  Your response is just insults.  I win.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-15 was never considered a dog.....Boeing: Historical Snapshot: F-15 Eagle Tactical Fighter 
On June 26, 1972, James S. McDonnell, founder of McDonnell Aircraft, christened the F-15 "Eagle." Test pilot Irv Burrows took the first F-15 Eagle to the air on July 27, 1972, at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Six months later, the Air Force approved the Eagle for full-rate production.

In early 1975, flying out of Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, an F-15A known as Streak Eagle set many time-to-climb world records. Between Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1975, the Streak Eagle broke eight time-to-climb world records. It reached an altitude of 98,425 feet just 3 minutes, 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and coasted to nearly 103,000 feet before descending.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-15 was never considered a dog.....Boeing: Historical Snapshot: F-15 Eagle Tactical Fighter
> On June 26, 1972, James S. McDonnell, founder of McDonnell Aircraft, christened the F-15 "Eagle." Test pilot Irv Burrows took the first F-15 Eagle to the air on July 27, 1972, at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Six months later, the Air Force approved the Eagle for full-rate production.
> 
> In early 1975, flying out of Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, an F-15A known as Streak Eagle set many time-to-climb world records. Between Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1975, the Streak Eagle broke eight time-to-climb world records. It reached an altitude of 98,425 feet just 3 minutes, 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and coasted to nearly 103,000 feet before descending.



In 1978< I was on them.  If the A lost it's radar for any reason it also lost it's gun.  It became the worlds most expensive trainer  ever made.  A few went into the weeds for no apparent reason as well.  Tails were broken off or cracked causing the bird to be transported back to the states.  Not a real good beginning.  But by the time the C model came about it was world class and still is.  It had some mighty severe teething problems to get there.

As for the Streak Eagle.  They had to rebalance the bird because it carried no radar, guns, missiles and a whole lot of systems.  It was a hotrod and not a fighter.  Same went for the Mig-25 that the Streak Eagle took the records from.  It took that much to take any records from a box stock Navy F-4 that held the records until the stripped Mig.  I can see you weren't around back then.  When were you born, sometime in the 80s or later?

Us old hands lived through all this.  You honestly think that Boeing is going to tell all the truth?


----------



## Manonthestreet

I see more bs.....nothing more....F-15 was hotrod out of the box..........and has only improved.......F-35 is stillborn.......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> I see more bs.....nothing more....F-15 was hotrod out of the box..........and has only improved.......F-35 is stillborn.......



Being a hotrod doesn't make it a good fighter.  It grew into the monster it is today.  Some take longer than others.  Like the F-111.  It has a history that makes the F-35 look like a Fairy Tale.  Mother Grim (Macnmara) rammed that down everyones throat and it took at least a decade for it to really find a home.


----------



## Manonthestreet

More lies......If it was so bad to begin with funny it never got shot down


----------



## Manonthestreet

The Block 2B version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the Marine Corps declared operational in July last year, is not capable of unsupported combat against any serious threat, according to Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E). Test Report Points to F-35’s Combat Limits


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The Block 2B version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the Marine Corps declared operational in July last year, is not capable of unsupported combat against any serious threat, according to Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E). Test Report Points to F-35’s Combat Limits



Can it drop JDAMS from racks?  Yes
Can it drop the JDAMS from the racks dead on target?  Yes
Can it fire the AMRAAMS and Aim-9X Missiles BVR?  Yes
Do we need it as a Air Superiority Fighter?  No
Is it a true stealth bird?  Yes
Working with AWACS, can it vector in other birds weapons?  Yes

Wow, 5 out of 6 ain't bad.

Sounds like it's ready for war, buckie.  The fact is, it can't do it all and they don't expect it to.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Unfortunately for you experts disagree.......And yes the Navy will need it to be Air Supe.....oooooops


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Unfortunately for you experts disagree.......And yes the Navy will need it to be Air Supe.....oooooops



I answered your "Experts" with an expert opinion that proves that your "Expert" is just playing Politics and shady dealing with some Military Hardware that is left out of the loop.  

And it's not the job of the Navy to fly air superiority.  Syria is a bit far to be using F-18s as air fighters.  It IS up to the AF to do that job and they are quite capable of doing it.  The Marines can pick up some slack in CAS areas that you can't put any other AC in without some heavy loses.    You are thinking so narrow.  I guess your handler wants to keep you that way and you aren't smart enough to think outside of that tiny box he keeps you in.


----------



## Manonthestreet

All youve posted is lying say so....I post fact after fact with link refuting your bs,,,you have nothing but pie in the sky lies.  If it really were rdy it would be in use trying to pump up the production budget and timetable but its not which puts the lie again to your bs


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> All youve posted is lying say so....I post fact after fact with link refuting your bs,,,you have nothing but pie in the sky lies.  If it really were rdy it would be in use trying to pump up the production budget and timetable but its not which puts the lie again to your bs



And I posted facts on the capability.  Your "Expert" obiosly has an ulterior motive.  I don't.  buy all this BS you are spewing.  I am retired AF and am as much an expert as any of your other "Experts".  I lived through many transitions and have seen the same doomsayers like you go off each and every time.  And each time, you are proven wrong in time.  The F-35B can handle CAS better than the A-10.  But so can the B-1, B-52, F-15E, AC-130U and a few others.  You want to bury the F-35 so you can follow the orders of your Handlers.  So be it.  You follow your handler but excuse me if others don't.


----------



## Indofred

Daryl Hunt said:


> Do we need it as a Air Superiority Fighter? No



If it isn't superior to enemy aircraft, will it make it to targets if visually detected?


----------



## Indofred

Daryl Hunt said:


> The F-35B can handle CAS better than the A-10



As far as A10 goes, I think we have to look at the reasons the hog was developed, then ask if those reasons are still valid today, moving on to ask if the F35 can be used in that role.

The fast jets of the Vietnam era were incapable of attacking ground targets, and were too prone to battle damage anyway, even if they could loiter for long enough in the area.
Has tech improvements invalidated these reasons, or are the F35's customers about to find out they've been sold a pup, at least as far as CAS goes?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Indofred said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need it as a Air Superiority Fighter? No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't superior to enemy aircraft, will it make it to targets if visually detected?
Click to expand...


Since it can fire the Aim-9X just get the nose within about 120 degees of you bad guy for a good kill.  180 degrees for a probable.  If the pilot can visually see the enemy then he can shoot them down.  Guns are important only to keep the other guy honest.  Even ground attacking, the gun keeps the bad guys head down and the bomb does the real killing.  Or the Rockets.  Or the ........  The guns is just part of your bag.  

So if you think the F-35B is helpless visual, you had better hope like hell he doesn't see you at all.  He will but you can hope.  Then you had better hope you closed without him seeing you.  Not going to happen.  And you are coming in on his blind spot.  He doesn't have one.  The F-35B will want to do a head to head fight.  The Bad guy won't want to do this.

Case in point.  During WWII, the P-38G could not turn with the Zero.  Yet the G and H model mowed down the Zero.  The P-38 always picked head to head.  It's 20mm had a longer range than the cannons on the Zero.  Plus, there was no divergence of aiming.  By the time the P-38J-25 hit the scene in late 1943, the Zero was just another target.  It could now out turn the zero using it's fowler flaps.  And it could out climb and out dive the Zero as well.  From the front, the P-38 had very little to see.  It looked smaller than the zero and even the P-51 so it could begin shooting even before the enemy could see it.  

The F-35B also will see the other guy first and begin his tactics.  Once they merge, the F-35 is still aware of exactly where the bad guy is.  Meaning, the F-35B drives the tactics.  And he makes sure you don't fly your own game as well.  I used the P-38G as an example.  Even though he couldn't dive or turn with the Zero, if you didn't allow the Zero to use his bag of tricks then the bird with the longest range almost always wins.

Closing, the P-38G would begin lighting up around your cockpit causing you to jinx and weave.  This enabled him to get within his 4 50 caliber MG range.  One huge fireball since the Zero didn't have armor or self sealing tanks.  The only way to get a F-35 to play your game is to require only stupid pilots fly them.  And that ain't gonna happen either.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Indofred said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35B can handle CAS better than the A-10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as A10 goes, I think we have to look at the reasons the hog was developed, then ask if those reasons are still valid today, moving on to ask if the F35 can be used in that role.
> 
> The fast jets of the Vietnam era were incapable of attacking ground targets, and were too prone to battle damage anyway, even if they could loiter for long enough in the area.
> Has tech improvements invalidated these reasons, or are the F35's customers about to find out they've been sold a pup, at least as far as CAS goes?
Click to expand...


The A-10 was not developed as a CAS bird.  It was designed to go head to head with acres of Russian T-72/T-90 tanks.  A war that never came.  Even when it did in Desert Storm, it was the heavy bombers hitting the armor from the air with the Abrams hitting them on the ground.  The A-10 was searching for a mission.  What they used the A-10 for was to send it out to suspected SAM sites and have it hit them.  Most of those sites were decoys and not operational.  But it was capable for the mission regardless.  

The CAS mission was done because it didn't really have a mission up to that point.  It found a home.  But it's not been the most successful CAS bird due to range.  Yah, I know, the figures used are Fairy Range.  That figure is no weapons, full fuel loads and it's best cruise speed and altitude for range.  Now, look at the combat range.  It's quite a bit different.  About the same as an Apache AH-64.  During Desert Storm, the A-10 had to wait for runways to be established closer to the action.  This is why other types of 'AC do the bulk of the CAS missions.  Yes, having a A-10 visual to the good guys makes the good guys feel more secure.  But I use an acronym regarding the enemy, ICUUCMe.  And if the enemy is equipped right, the A-10 becomes a target when the enemy shoots back.  The B-1 won't be heard or seen.  The Bad Guy just starts dying.

BTW, the A-1E and Cobra didn't have much of a problem in hitting ground targets.  And so did the A-7 and A-6 and F-4 and anything with a gun or a bomb rack.  I lived through that little dustup.  did you?


----------



## Indofred

F-35 fighter jet development hampered by many flaws - BBC News



> A list of serious flaws has been found in a jet fighter in development for 15 years.
> 
> The F-35's ejector seat "failed to meet neck-injury criteria" and the jet had a "limited ability to respond to threats", the US defence department has said.
> 
> The jet's development, by Lockheed Martin, has already cost $1 trillion (£0.7tn), partly funded by the UK.
> 
> Previously, its UK planned deployment date was put back from 2012 to 2023.



By 2023 the thing will be way out of date anyway.
Is it time to cut the losses and scrap it, along with the silly buggers who set the project in motion?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Indofred said:


> F-35 fighter jet development hampered by many flaws - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A list of serious flaws has been found in a jet fighter in development for 15 years.
> 
> The F-35's ejector seat "failed to meet neck-injury criteria" and the jet had a "limited ability to respond to threats", the US defence department has said.
> 
> The jet's development, by Lockheed Martin, has already cost $1 trillion (£0.7tn), partly funded by the UK.
> 
> Previously, its UK planned deployment date was put back from 2012 to 2023.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 2023 the thing will be way out of date anyway.
> Is it time to cut the losses and scrap it, along with the silly buggers who set the project in motion?
Click to expand...


What's the matter, you want to bring back the greatness that Britain once had in Fighter Production?  Hate to break it to you, it's been over 60 years since that has happened.  Not going to happen here either.


----------



## Indofred

Ah, the fool's argument.
I think the idea of debate is to offer reasons why an expected extra 11 year delay isn't a serious problem.
Then we come to value for money.
The idea behind the aircraft is clearly excellent, but it looks like reality is an epic fail.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Indofred said:


> Ah, the fool's argument.
> I think the idea of debate is to offer reasons why an expected extra 11 year delay isn't a serious problem.
> Then we come to value for money.
> The idea behind the aircraft is clearly excellent, but it looks like reality is an epic fail.



Oh, I agree.  Too many just go by the sheeple reasoning.  Just because someone that may or may not be qualified said something always makes it true.  I am finding that these "Experts" aren't any expert than me.

The delay of 11 years is because the buyers keep changing their minds as new things come available.  It's gotten heavier and heavier in the process and has lost it's nimbleness.  It could have been out years ago without all that.

Value for the money.  When it's the only thing value is when it goes to war.  And that has yet to happen.  It should do real well since it's the first of it's kind and the Russians and Chinese are having to play catchup with their ground to air.  If for every dollar spent, it costs the other side a dollar to try and keep up with it then it's well valued.  Shades of Raygun and Starwars.

A huge mistake was already made in the onset.  Taking one airframe and making it do 3 completely different things.  The biggest mistake was not to design a VTOL from the ground up separate from the A and C model.  That ran up the cost.  Way up.  And the A could have been out long ago and it's much more agile than either the B or the C.  

The problem with discussing it is the fact that each one has shortcomings.  To include all shortcomings and say ALL are like that is rediculous.  For instance, the A and C share 70% between them.  But the B only shares about 35% with the other two.  Not what they planned.  But the very nature of the B, it has to be that way.  They hadn't planned that in but learned, in order to produce them all, that is just the way it has to be.  Making the B a completely different Aircraft that just looks like the other two.


----------



## HenryBHough

This could properly come under a "will she/won't she" sort of title but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.  I as there at the last show 2 years back and have already bought my ticket for the coming one.

Anyone else planning to be there......to see if the F35 is sufficiently airworthy to actually appear this time?

Farnborough International Airshow Public 2016 - FARNBOROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW COULD WELCOME UP TO FIVE F-35s AT SUMMER SHOWCASE


----------



## Manonthestreet

I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile


----------



## HenryBHough

If it flies I will take photos and will post them here.

Having seen The Typhoon maneuver it will take a great deal to convince me the F35 approaches it.

Mission creep has a way of turning good planes into hanger queens.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
Click to expand...


But it's days were numbered.  Waxing 2 F-18s isn't the same as waxing one F-16 or F-15.  Whenever you navalize a bird, you add weight and do quite a few compramizes.  The F-17 (non navalized F-18) was offered but it had no buyers since the F-16 cost about the same and ran circles around it.  Boeing has never gotten the thrust to weight ratio above 1 to 1 on either the F-17 or the F-18.  

Now, why does the Navy need the F-35?  Easy answer.  The C (navalized version) doesn't have any advantages of speed, payload.  It does have almost twice the range of the F-18 and comes with all the neat toys.  The C carries over 20,000 pounds of fuel internally and can take off heavier than the F-18.  The combat range of the F-18E/F is 390 miles.  Meanwhile, the C has a longer range than the USAF A version that has a 610 mile combat range.  The Enemy is just getting too close to the carrier group at 390 miles.  The F-18 has to take off light as it is by changing his fuel load and weapons load.


----------



## I amso IR

Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16,  he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16,  he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.



That is, IF:

1:  The F-35 has a hung door or another malfunction that takes away his stealth
2:  All the other Fighters look the other way while you close or they self destruct
3:  The Navy cooperates with you
4:  The F-35 doesn't catch on and sends a package or two your way
5:  The Laws of Physics gets resended.  Should happen right after Obamacare is appealed.

It's going to look like a class reunion for Amraams and Aim-9Xs.  The Aim-9Xs have to bring the beer and pizza.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I amso IR said:


> Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16,  he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.


unless of course he has supercruise he will chase your ass down and fly away before you have time to do anything.....oooops.......F-35 will be tasked with air supe in the Navy and Marine version.....ooooops


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Daryl! Back at it with Manonthestreet (MOTS) I see. Keep up the good work, Bud, I have to chuckle every time he try's to say something he knows nothing about. He proves that with all of his citations and links. At least HenryBHough (HBH) asks some decent questions. I am looking forward to the pictures he will post. And yes, should the 35 mix it up with the Typhoon I expect it to be tight. Since the 35 will not have the option of using all of it's wares, it will be difficult to show superiority as killing an allied pilot in peace time is not the name of the game. Farnborough takes away from the true F35 mission somewhat. After all, the Typhoon supplements the F35, not the other way around. MOTS & HBH need to understand that, MOTS in particular. Faster than fast is not the complete answer. Every minute the faster than fast wastes trying to catch the F35, to get within kill distance, the less fuel he preserves to get him home. And to get around the F22/F15/F16,  he is going to need every ounce of fuel he has on board. To bad, bad guy, you lose! Keep on preaching to the choir MOTS, keep on preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> unless of course he has supercruise he will chase your ass down and fly away before you have time to do anything.....oooops.......F-35 will be tasked with air supe in the Navy and Marine version.....ooooops
Click to expand...


And he will find out what a Mach 4 super enema feels like.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Unlikely......you have no ability to to outmaneuver anything....you have short legs.....stealth is alrdy going the way of the DODO and by the time yu get fully functional it'll be obsolete..


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Unlikely......you have no ability to to outmaneuver anything....you have short legs.....stealth is alrdy going the way of the DODO and by the time yu get fully functional it'll be obsolete..



Newsflash, the A model comes into service by the end of this year.  Stealth is still the new kid on the block.  The closer you get, the less stealth works so you fire from your maximum range.  The Ruskies claim they can do 300 KM but in reality, it's less than 90.  Not real impressive.  But the F-35, F-22, F-15, F-18 and F-16 will be opening fire at about 100 miles.  For those of you that wonder about the conversion, that's about 160km.  

As for range, let me guess.  You still claim 390 miles combat radius.  Sure if it's the B model.  But the A is 610 miles and the C carries even more gas.  In fact, the C carries up to about 20,000 lbs since it uses what the B uses for it's liftfan for fuel storage.  Making the Navy bird the longest legged.  Since the F-18E/F has only a 390 mile combat radius that makes the F-35 very important and something the Navy lost when it retired the F-4 and F-14.  Plus when it retired the A-7, A-4 and A-6.  The Navy has needed longer legs for quite some time.  The bad guys are just getting too close these days.

I look for the Navy to start replacement of the older F-18C/D next year and to be done in 2019.  The AF is starting this year and should be done in 2018 where they pull a unit off line, train it and equip it and then put that unit back online with the F-35A.

Look at it this way, the A-10 only has a 150 mile combat radius.  Our units are operating constantly beyond that so something has to take over the job.  Only 19% of all CAS was done by the A-10 in 2014.  In 2014, the F-16 did 39% of them.  In 2015, there were almost no A-10 operation for CAS but almost all of them was done by the B-1.  The B-1 has currently been pulled from the Middle East for upgrades.  The Buff has already had those mods and has taken over that job.  I suspect that next year, the B-1 will be back in the Middle East raising hell once again.  

The F-35 isn't replacing newer AC, it's replacing older ones.  Yes, there are some 40 year old F-15Cs and F-16s as well as many F-18C/Ds in service that badly needs to be taken out of the inventory.  Remember, the A-10 is 40 years old and has it's wings flown off.  It's mission is hard on the equipment.  It's not like a Cargo/Tanker/Bomber that flies in straight lines.  You can replace the wings, tails, avionics, landing gear but you can't replace the Airframe.  The A-10 is nearing where they start limiting the g forces like they did with the F-4.  The F-4 was a 12 G airframe.  But in the end, it was limited to 4.5Gs.  The Airframe could no longer handle the hard Gs.  

So you can keep doing this nonsense but in the end, the birds that the F-35 will be replacing all have to come out of inventory in the next couple of years anyway.  It won't be until 2025 that the F-22 and the F-35 start to lose it's edge.  The Russians are learning fast that just because it looks like a stealth aircraft doesn't make it stealthy.  India is livid that the Russians haven't kept up with what they promised even after India put 5 billion into the project.

Air Wars have changed.  It started changing the day the F-117 hit the first target.


----------



## xband

The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

xband said:


> The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.



So is the F-16, the original electric lawn dart.  The difference is, the F-16 can over gee quite easily.  The F-22 is a fly by wire with built in limits.  The Mods being done on the newer F-15s are all fly by wire.  The Russians are just now catching on to this method.  Fly by wire is dangerous but to the other guy usually.

Where do you get your information?  The same argument was used on trying to destroy the F-16 before it began production.  There are no new areguments.  They have all been used on previous aircraft that have become legends.


----------



## I amso IR

xband said:


> The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.


*History[edit]*



F-8C Crusader digital fly-by-wire testbed
Electronic signalling of the control surfaces was first tested in the 1930s, on the Soviet Tupolev ANT-20.[3] This replaced long runs of mechanical and hydraulic connections with electrical ones.

The first pure electronic fly-by-wire aircraft with no mechanical or hydraulic backup was the Apollo Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), first flown in 1964.[4]

The first non-experimental aircraft that was designed and flown (in 1958) with a fly-by-wire flight control system was the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow,[5][6] a feat not repeated with a production aircraft until Concorde in 1969. This system also included solid-state components and system redundancy, was designed to be integrated with a computerised navigation and automatic search and track radar, was flyable from ground control with data uplink and downlink, and provided artificial feel (feedback) to the pilot.[6]

In the UK the two seater Avro 707B was flown with a Fairey system with mechanical backup[7] in the early to mid-60s. The programme was curtailed when the airframe ran out of flight time.[8]

The first digital fly-by-wire fixed-wing aircraft without a mechanical backup[9] to take to the air (in 1972) was an F-8 Crusader, which had been modified electronically by NASA of the United States as a test aircraft.[10] This was preceded in 1964 by the LLRV which pioneered fly-by-wire flight with no mechanical backup.[11] Control was through a digital computer with three analogue backup channels. In the USSR the Sukhoi T-4 also flew. At about the same time in the United Kingdom a trainer variant of the British Hawker Hunter fighter was modified at the British Royal Aircraft Establishment with fly-by-wire flight controls[8] for the right-seat pilot. This was test-flown, with the left-seat pilot having conventional flight controls for safety reasons, and with the capability for him to override and turn off the fly-by-wire system.[_citation needed_] It flew in April 1972.

This article from Wikipedia, I know, that drated Wikipedia, offers some insight into fly by wire. As you will note, "fly by wire was considered safe enough to go to the moon. The Sov's were testing it back in 1930. Using that date, it means a form of fly by wire has been considered for 86 years or so. That should be long enough to make it user friendly and dependable. If it is considered safe for commercial use I have to think the troops will find it acceptable. Probably not much of use in the Piper J3 "Cub" however. As a side note, where I hung out as a kid in the early 1950's we had two J3's on floats in south Florida. We would fly the coast along side US Highway #1. The Greyhound buses on US1 would outrun us on a good day. Them wuz the good old days.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is fly by wire that I think is unsafe.
> 
> 
> 
> *History[edit]*
> 
> 
> 
> F-8C Crusader digital fly-by-wire testbed
> Electronic signalling of the control surfaces was first tested in the 1930s, on the Soviet Tupolev ANT-20.[3] This replaced long runs of mechanical and hydraulic connections with electrical ones.
> 
> The first pure electronic fly-by-wire aircraft with no mechanical or hydraulic backup was the Apollo Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), first flown in 1964.[4]
> 
> The first non-experimental aircraft that was designed and flown (in 1958) with a fly-by-wire flight control system was the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow,[5][6] a feat not repeated with a production aircraft until Concorde in 1969. This system also included solid-state components and system redundancy, was designed to be integrated with a computerised navigation and automatic search and track radar, was flyable from ground control with data uplink and downlink, and provided artificial feel (feedback) to the pilot.[6]
> 
> In the UK the two seater Avro 707B was flown with a Fairey system with mechanical backup[7] in the early to mid-60s. The programme was curtailed when the airframe ran out of flight time.[8]
> 
> The first digital fly-by-wire fixed-wing aircraft without a mechanical backup[9] to take to the air (in 1972) was an F-8 Crusader, which had been modified electronically by NASA of the United States as a test aircraft.[10] This was preceded in 1964 by the LLRV which pioneered fly-by-wire flight with no mechanical backup.[11] Control was through a digital computer with three analogue backup channels. In the USSR the Sukhoi T-4 also flew. At about the same time in the United Kingdom a trainer variant of the British Hawker Hunter fighter was modified at the British Royal Aircraft Establishment with fly-by-wire flight controls[8] for the right-seat pilot. This was test-flown, with the left-seat pilot having conventional flight controls for safety reasons, and with the capability for him to override and turn off the fly-by-wire system.[_citation needed_] It flew in April 1972.
> 
> This article from Wikipedia, I know, that drated Wikipedia, offers some insight into fly by wire. As you will note, "fly by wire was considered safe enough to go to the moon. The Sov's were testing it back in 1930. Using that date, it means a form of fly by wire has been considered for 86 years or so. That should be long enough to make it user friendly and dependable. If it is considered safe for commercial use I have to think the troops will find it acceptable. Probably not much of use in the Piper J3 "Cub" however. As a side note, where I hung out as a kid in the early 1950's we had two J3's on floats in south Florida. We would fly the coast along side US Highway #1. The Greyhound buses on US1 would outrun us on a good day. Them wuz the good old days.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's been around as long as RC Aircraft.  I saw a demonstration where the RC PIlot took the plane off flew it around for a bit then shut his radio transmitter off.  The electronics detected this and brought the bird in for a landing.  The RCer did have to taxi it in.  

The F-16 does get the nod for the first fly by wire fighter in production though.


----------



## I amso IR

F-35 stealth jet REALLY can perform Top Gun ‘fly right by’
The above Daily Mail article gives the impressions left on a pilots training in the F35.. He, the pilot, is very enthusiastic with the F35 when comparing the aircraft to the F16 he formerly flew. A true hands on report which will hurt many "nay sayers" feelings and opinions. But then, I told you so!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> F-35 stealth jet REALLY can perform Top Gun ‘fly right by’
> The above Daily Mail article gives the impressions left on a pilots training in the F35.. He, the pilot, is very enthusiastic with the F35 when comparing the aircraft to the F16 he formerly flew. A true hands on report which will hurt many "nay sayers" feelings and opinions. But then, I told you so!



I did a little research on the Lockheed Test Pilot.  He has thousands of hours in an F-16.  The F-35 he flew was the second experimental F-35 and hadn't gotten the mods it would need.  Plus, Lockheed is also the manufacturer of the F-16.  For sales, it's a win win for Lockheed.  If they can make immediate sales in the F-16 then they still win.  The Lockheed Test pilot hadn't flown the F-35 for the first time.  When you look at all the issues of his article in 2015 you will find he wasn't qualified to make that report.  One flight on a brand new weapons system that is quite different than a pilot with hundreds of hours and a Production Bird.

Everything I have said about the F-35 is coming true.  The F-35A is ready for combat now and when they start shutting down other weapons systems units in order to progress them into the F-35 it won't take it long to enter combat.


----------



## I amso IR

Daryl, I like the fact that he is from Norway and is a pilot with Norway's Air Force and has numerous hours in the F16. This puts the international stamp on the aircraft. I saw this on line and simply wanted to post it here where the nay sayers may see it. I am not a pilot in any sense of the word, but, were I a young man interested in being a jet jockey, the F35 would be my goal. The well trained F35 pilot will be the nightmare of any aggressor, pure and simple.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Daryl, I like the fact that he is from Norway and is a pilot with Norway's Air Force and has numerous hours in the F16. This puts the international stamp on the aircraft. I saw this on line and simply wanted to post it here where the nay sayers may see it. I am not a pilot in any sense of the word, but, were I a young man interested in being a jet jockey, the F35 would be my goal. The well trained F35 pilot will be the nightmare of any aggressor, pure and simple.



If you didn't I would have.  Funny, I wonder when the people that don't know squat will fire it up once again.  I stated that the poor turn rate was just software.  It was.  Now, it's one bad MOFO with the proper software.  It flies right up against it's capability and won't allow the Pilot to cross the line.  I do like the feeback the whole aircraft gives when it's right at that point.  The F-35 vibrates when it reaches that point and won't go past it.  The F-16 doesn't give any indication when it reaches that point.  That means that the F-16 has to stay below that point or go out of control if it crosses it.  

The F-35A can now be flown agressive, moreso than others.  It can fire it's gun, fire both the Amraam from further out than the bad guy can see and uses the Aim9-X where it can go as far as 120 degrees arc.  By being able to get the nose turned at a higher angle, it will be able to shoot first and bag the target.

This is means that the F-35A goes into service by the end of the year.  By 2017, the old stuff will be gone and the rest of the "Non" friendly nations will have to be very careful when firing on our birds.


----------



## Manonthestreet

It has so far cost over $3.5bn, and is eight years late. 

Hailed as the most expensive weapon in history, the controversial F-35 stealth fighter jet is undergoing rigorous testing at California's Edwards Air Force Base.

Now, it has emerged the jets complex radar system has a problem - it keeps crashing.



Read more:F-35 fighter jet has radar flaw that can only be fixed by a reboot
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter|DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> It has so far cost over $3.5bn, and is eight years late.
> 
> Hailed as the most expensive weapon in history, the controversial F-35 stealth fighter jet is undergoing rigorous testing at California's Edwards Air Force Base.
> 
> Now, it has emerged the jets complex radar system has a problem - it keeps crashing.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more:F-35 fighter jet has radar flaw that can only be fixed by a reboot
> Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter|DailyMail on Facebook




Won't  you ever learn, there, spanky.

Your whole article is all of the problems from AF-1 all the way to last year.  Most of this has been fixed already.

Newsfash, when you are turning hard your radar WILL go offline.  This includes the F-16/18/15/22 and almost every known computer controlled ship.  You have to reset it AFTER you get the gees and bucking down to a managable level.  The more complicated the system the more it will have to be reset.  Another name for it is "Reboot".  Every once in awhile, my computer will freeze up and a reboot is needed.  I can duplicate the same stresses on the F-35 computer systems by throwing my laptop into a cement wall as hard as I can throw it.  Guess what, if it survives the impact, a reboot will be necessary.

Why aren't you ragging on the F-22 and the newest F-15 versions   This isn't a software problem, it's a hardware problem.  In order fix the problem is to make the system more robust. 

BTW, they made it more robust on the Production Model F-35A.  The Norwegian Pilot constantly goes right up against what the F-35A can do.  That Vibration he is using as feedback is actually severe buffeting where  you are very close to losing it.  Unlike the F-16/15/18 it will continue to operate in that condition.  Making it one really Bad MOFO.  In the 4 Gen fighter, it would be very easy to go past that point when your bad guy is flying right up against it.  Do that and you lose control of  your Aircraft and you exit the flight limits.  Meaning, you will be dead in a matter of seconds. 

What next, you going to dig up some fruitcake that is harping about the Pilots Socks?

Before the Internet, it was a British Tabloid and nothing has changed.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Uh no,,,........not fixed.....just wave that magic bs some more....LLMMAAOOOOO


----------



## Manonthestreet

Didn't read the article did ya .....it states they are hoping .......hoping to have it fixed by end of March...........not to mention the over 400 problems still not solved.......ooooops


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Oh, I read it.  That rag is equal to the National Inquirer in Britain.  

Let's take a look at a couple of issues it brings up

It can't fire it's gun.  That was covered in Block 20.
It can't fire it's missiles.   That was covered in Block 10 and Block 30.
It can't turn, climb or go fast.  Covered in Bocks 10, 20 and 30.

Newsflash, you keep using the AF-1 and AF-2 test models and claiming it applies to the Block 30 F-35A.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Once more all you have is your uninformed ignorance as proof.........


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Once more all you have is your uninformed ignorance as proof.........


Let's see.  Do I accept the truth from Combat Pilots or do I accept a sensational rag from Britain.  Let me guess, next weeks edition has Elvis flying the F-35A and reporting on it's performance or lack thereof.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Yeah cause they just made it up....funny how they knew about the over 400 things still not up to combat readiness


----------



## Manonthestreet

Funny I'm the only one with links ......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Funny I'm the only one with links ......



Wow, calling the British equiv of the National Inquirer as a cite?

You keep ignoring the links a few of us give that proves you need to be posting in Conspiracy.

F-35 stealth jet REALLY can perform Top Gun ‘fly right by’


----------



## Manonthestreet

Unfortunately there is no reason to dogfight the F-35 since every other fighter flys higher merely shoot it down while it sits down there and watches its doom......BTW 0V-10 was brought back to do CAS in ME ....but but the F-35 combat rdy and much better at it ....LLLMMAAAOOOOO


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Unfortunately there is no reason to dogfight the F-35 since every other fighter flys higher merely shoot it down while it sits down there and watches its doom......BTW 0V-10 was brought back to do CAS in ME ....but but the F-35 combat rdy and much better at it ....LLLMMAAAOOOOO



Wow using a 2 year old writeup from an inexperience F-35 driver  sure does make sense   (not)

Considering that the A-10 was supposed to take over the OV-10s role, guess what.  For CAS there is NOTHING that competes with the AV-10.


----------



## Manonthestreet

No just the facts...your ceiling is low Forties.....real fighters fly much higher.......as Cosby would say...."you will receive"


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> No just the facts...your ceiling is low Forties.....real fighters fly much higher.......as Cosby would say...."you will receive"



Exactly where did you get the low forties.  So far, it's claissified.  Should we send the FBI or the US Marshals around to pick up?


----------



## Manonthestreet

From the hundreds of links posted...go read


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> From the hundreds of links posted...go read



All based on the same information on the AF-2 and not the production F-35A.  Your story would be consistent if it were still early 2014 or late 2013.  

Meanwhile, the F-35A is coming online starting late this year and all of those "Problems" are largely taken care of.  Yes, starting this year, A-10 Units will start to be replaced.  And that is what your nonsense is all about.  Trying to same a 40 year old bird that no longer has a mission.


----------



## Indofred

Another reason the F35 is a pup.

Vintage planes used in Vietnam helped US special forces fight ISIS



> Two vintage planes used in the Vietnam War have been brought out of retirement to help US special forces in Iraq.
> 
> A pair of OV-10 Broncos completed 120 combat missions over the Middle East between May and September last year, it has been revealed.
> 
> The turbo-prop jet is thought to have carried out 134 sorties over 82 days in May, acting as cover for the soldiers fighting ISIS terrorists on the ground.



The reasons given...



> Whereas an F-15 can cost up to $40,000 per flight, a Bronco can operate for just $1,000 for every hour it is in the air.



Technology is wonderful, but not always needed to get a job done. The F35 is, in my humble opinion, a massive error.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Indofred said:


> Another reason the F35 is a pup.
> 
> Vintage planes used in Vietnam helped US special forces fight ISIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two vintage planes used in the Vietnam War have been brought out of retirement to help US special forces in Iraq.
> 
> A pair of OV-10 Broncos completed 120 combat missions over the Middle East between May and September last year, it has been revealed.
> 
> The turbo-prop jet is thought to have carried out 134 sorties over 82 days in May, acting as cover for the soldiers fighting ISIS terrorists on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons given...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas an F-15 can cost up to $40,000 per flight, a Bronco can operate for just $1,000 for every hour it is in the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technology is wonderful, but not always needed to get a job done. The F35 is, in my humble opinion, a massive error.
Click to expand...


That was the OV-10s mission in a nutshell.  If you use the D model, it carries a 20mm gun.  If you are using the D+ model,  You get 4 Miniguns.  And rockets and two Aim9s on the wing.  It's just enough for the mission.

We also had a few get into Sandy when the other resources weren't available.  Again,. just enough.

The A-10 is just too much.  Way overkill.  It's a single seater and ID mistakes do happen.  When they do happen some friendlies get shot up pretty bad.  If you want a different take on things, just ask the Ground Brits who have been on the receiving end of an A-10 attack.  The Mission for the A-10 never happened.  It was designed to kill tanks in rolling hills green landscape.  It's like swatting flies with a 9lb sledge and then wondering where all the holes in the walls came from


----------



## Indofred

The whole point being, the massive cost of the 'superfighter' is a pointless waste of time when a small, cheap aircraft can do the job at a fraction of the cost, and probably better anyway.
Apart from all the technical issues with the F35, the cost is stupidity when you consider you get sod all gain for the cash you've spent.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Indofred said:


> The whole point being, the massive cost of the 'superfighter' is a pointless waste of time when a small, cheap aircraft can do the job at a fraction of the cost, and probably better anyway.
> Apart from all the technical issues with the F35, the cost is stupidity when you consider you get sod all gain for the cash you've spent.



That smaller cheaper bird can only do a portion of the job required.  And that would be the part where the A-10 is doing a fair job.  Meanwhile, the OV-10 was invented to fly the CAS and Sandy missions.  It was also designed to do the Forward Air Controller mission which takes an AC with NO weapons but the second Crewman and fantastic ability to go medium, speed with the ability to see the ground and being able to loiter for long periods.  This only works AFTER things are neutralized in the Air and the Radar Sites are taken down.

Funny, those same requirements also apply to the A-10 making it not really worth the money to keep it flying.  The USAF got hurt the worst when it gave it's A-1Es away and sold it's OV10s for 2,400 bucks each. Next went the A-7s.  Finally, there went the AT-37.  USAF was stripped of it's CAS and Sandy leaving an actual mission for the A-10 which lost it's intended mission when the wall fell.  USAF has always wanted a replacement AC for that mission but Congress has fought them for the last almost 20 years. 

Meanwhile, the Marines, kept their OV-10s and still fly the AH-1 Chopper and are able to hold their own.  But they still require Radar Birds from the Navy.  What they hope to get from the F-35Bs is the jamming and stealth.    Not ground attack of any kind.  The fact that it can shoot missiles and drop JDAMS is a huge plus.  The upgrades now being done on the F-35A will also be installed into the B and C.  Just like many of the systems have already been installed into the F-22 making it someones worst nightmare. 

The gripes that are done against the F-35A are true about only the B and the two test versions.  What we are seeing is the coming of age of the F-35 across the board.  The F-4, F-15, F-16 and F-22 all had the same things said about them while they matured AFTER they went operational.  Lumping the F-35 into the that family is actually a family is a pretty good bunch to be compared to in the same time frame.

The only other option would be a huge cost.  Put the F-22 back into production benefiting from the work already done on the F-35.  But at over 200M per copy, the US would have to go it alone without the financial aid from the other countries progged to get the F-35. 

By replacing A-10 Units one by one, that gets around Congress and gets the job done.  But it still leave a gap in CAS and Sandy.    And, believe it or not, until something simpler and cheaper comes along (like arming the T-6s already in service or buying the AT-6) the B-1 and B-52 will fill in that mission. Or we can buy back the OV-10s or take them from Davis Mauthen AFB until a suitable bird can be found.


----------



## Manonthestreet

After 15 years of development and billions of dollars of investment, software glitches continue to hamper Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operations and in one case, just one of six US Air Force F-35As on a mock deployment to Mountain Home AFB in Idaho were able to takeoff during an alert launch exercise. F-35 chief considers fix for troubling Block 3i software faults


----------



## williepete

We should drop the F-35 and go with the other fighter we have in development.

Oh, wait...


----------



## Manonthestreet

Whole purpose of continuing the F-35 by Obama was exactly that...your naval air is shot........take your carriers and park em


----------



## there4eyeM

Carriers are the battleships of WWII.


----------



## alpine

Indofred said:


> Another reason the F35 is a pup.
> 
> Vintage planes used in Vietnam helped US special forces fight ISIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two vintage planes used in the Vietnam War have been brought out of retirement to help US special forces in Iraq.
> 
> A pair of OV-10 Broncos completed 120 combat missions over the Middle East between May and September last year, it has been revealed.
> 
> The turbo-prop jet is thought to have carried out 134 sorties over 82 days in May, acting as cover for the soldiers fighting ISIS terrorists on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons given...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas an F-15 can cost up to $40,000 per flight, a Bronco can operate for just $1,000 for every hour it is in the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technology is wonderful, but not always needed to get a job done. The F35 is, in my humble opinion, a massive error.
Click to expand...



ISIS is not a strategic rival for the US.

It is Russia and China, you are competing with.

A stealth technology that the navy can use, is a useless technology for the US, since the US projection of power highly depended on the Navy, more then anything...

However I dont think F35 is the right way to bring the stealth technology into the Navy.
There are much efficient alternative platforms to do the job imo.


----------



## there4eyeM

Many, small and cheap is the strategic order of the day. Big, expensive and few is catastrophe waiting to happen.


----------



## alpine

there4eyeM said:


> Many, small and cheap is the strategic order of the day. Big, expensive and few is catastrophe waiting to happen.



Exactly.

Just like in the WWII, quantity always beat quality...


----------



## there4eyeM

Well, the Garand was not inferior to German or any other rifles, but it certainly provided much more tactical firepower than the enemy. In general, though, the firstest and mostest principle is fairly sound. Having a lot of something good enough is a safe bet.
Remember, the best is the enemy of the good.


----------



## alpine

T34 and M4 were inferior to German tanks, but sheer numbers prevailed, as always.

Same goes with the air superiority.

First nation to deploy cheaply made and easily managed sheer number of stealth drones, will rule the skies for at least a century, looks like...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

alpine said:


> T34 and M4 were inferior to German tanks, but sheer numbers prevailed, as always.
> 
> Same goes with the air superiority.
> 
> First nation to deploy cheaply made and easily managed sheer number of stealth drones, will rule the skies for at least a century, looks like...



The problem with this is you depend on the 4 to one kill ratio.  It might have been true when you started but the enemy doesn't always cooperate.  With the few F-22s we have, the F-15 is going to be going in on those missions with a 1 to one kill ratio against the SU-30+ fighters.  You never want a 1 to 1 ratio.  You want a 4 to one or better.  Your enemy will have to out produce you by at least 4 times for parity.  So which is best?  Easy answer.  Both are.  Right now, the US has the advantage but Russia and China are trying to play catchup.


----------



## I amso IR

Which is exactly the reasoning with the F35. It is a standoff platform which brings a high kill ratio to the scenario. Then the 15, 16 or what ever are on an even playing field. The problems it, the 35 face are computerization not airframe. Think about the evolution of Microsoft Windows. All these years and it still stumbles. All these years later and compared to the system for the 35 it is a beginners program. The airplane fly's and does it well. Folks say it was beaten by a 35 year old 16. That may be so, but it is also false to say that it was truly beaten. The aircraft has not been approved to or allowed to be put through it's true paces yet. The computer is so complex and critical to aircraft survival that it cannot be turned loose for fear of the computer going bonkers from over load and shutting down. Think Obama Care and the hoops it went through for the lack of a trusted system. When operational, that bird will beat all comers hands down. When the J20's, MIG's and SU30's start falling before they even know there is a 35 over the horizon busting them in the ass, the truth will be known. Why go one on one when you can do 1 on five and then let the older fast movers mop up, the 22 included. If Barney Rubble and crew ever learn to program a computer, that is. The point is that the computer pak needs to be able to do more tricks than a monkey can do on a mile of grapevines. The airframe is fine even with the original engine. The upgrade will make it even better. And I will venture a guess that the cost over run will be a gift horse down the road. Like good wine, it will get better with age and the knowledge gained from the 35 will out pace anything that anyone else can produce which will help unmanned vehicle programs exponentially in computerization alone. If you want to bitch at someone, bitch at Microsoft, the product you keep buying even though it still sucks, after all these years.


----------



## HenryBHough

Terror, turkey or turd?

I'll get to see for myself at Farnborough in July.  

F35 is supposed (once more) to be there.

If it does show up, flies, and performs well it could be a terror to an enemy.

If it shows up but doesn't fly, turkey.

If, like last time, it's a no-show.....then turd.


----------



## I amso IR

HenryBHough said:


> Terror, turkey or turd?
> 
> I'll get to see for myself at Farnborough in July.
> 
> F35 is supposed (once more) to be there.
> 
> If it does show up, flies, and performs well it could be a terror to an enemy.
> 
> If it shows up but doesn't fly, turkey.
> 
> If, like last time, it's a no-show.....then turd.



You mentioned that a few weeks ago. Bring back a bunch of pictures so we can all see. Also you might want to read the article below. Again, another computer support system problem. If, and that is one huge if, if the computer pukes can get their acts aligned much bad press could be avoided. Not a hell of a lot has changed since Valley Forge with the exception of mule trains. They could be counted on.

*Could Connectivity Failure Ground F-35? It's Complicated*



 Lara Seligman, Defense News 4:01 a.m. EDT April 29, 2016
TWEET 77 LINKEDIN 3 COMMENTEMAILMORE
WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint program office and a top government watchdog are butting heads about a key question for the joint strike fighter: whether or not the fifth-generation plane can fly if disconnected from a key logistics system.

At the center of the debate is the Autonomics Logistics and Information System (ALIS), an internal diagnostic system that tracks the health of each part of each plane worldwide. ALIS is no stranger to controversy, with top program officials identifying it as the last hurdle to declaring the US Air Force jets operational on time this year.

Now a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identifies a new ALIS-related concern — that if a single ALIS server were to go down, whether from loss of electricity or sabotage, it could cripple the entire F-35 fleet.

"Users are concerned that ALIS’ current design results in all F-35 data produced across the fleet to be routed up to the Central Point of Entry and then to the Autonomic Logistics Operating Unit, with no backup system or redundancy,” according to the April GAO report. “If either of these fail, it could take the entire F-35 fleet offline.”

But JPO chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan disagrees, telling reporters last week after testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee there is “absolutely” no truth to the claim that a failure to connect to ALIS could ground the fleet.

The differing views of the program office and the GAO over ALIS reflect the ongoing challenges of the F-35 program, and the fleet's logistics system in particular. ALIS is by far the most integrated and complex fleet management system in the US military today, but advances in technology often give rise to new challenges — and without a clear precedent from previous systems, both sides have legitimate arguments to fall back on.


----------



## Cruz-Clinton

Thinker no USAF or only F-35 under 2500 pcs in Defense or a guerilla Army are 3rd best.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 only has front aspect stealth.....F-35 will be falling from the sky as SU's shoot down on your low and slow gadget that still cant respond in an alert DRILL.....


----------



## Indofred

there4eyeM said:


> Many, small and cheap is the strategic order of the day. Big, expensive and few is catastrophe waiting to happen.



Pretty much guaranteed.
One flaw or chink in its armour, and the whole fleet is compromised.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

When the F-15 first came out, it took years to get it ironed out.    Many of the same things complained out of the F-15 is now being claimed on the F-35.  When the F-16 was first introduced it was nicknamed the "Lawn Dart".  The F-15, F-16 and F-22 have all three become staples across the World.  The F-22 now has a lower hourly operating cost than the F-15.As they iron out the F-35 with it's maintenance friendly construction it will join the ranks of low operating costs.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> When the F-15 first came out, it took years to get it ironed out.    Many of the same things complained out of the F-15 is now being claimed on the F-35.  When the F-16 was first introduced it was nicknamed the "Lawn Dart".  The F-15, F-16 and F-22 have all three become staples across the World.  The F-22 now has a lower hourly operating cost than the F-15.As they iron out the F-35 with it's maintenance friendly construction it will join the ranks of low operating costs.


More BS


----------



## Manonthestreet

Oh look hundreds of worthless planes if war erupts
Final F-35 Testing Slips To 2018
WASHINGTON — The military’s top weapons tester has been warning for months that the F-35 will not be ready for its final test phase until 2018 at the earliest. On Tuesday, the Pentagon officially acknowledged the schedule slip.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Oh look hundreds of worthless planes if war erupts
> Final F-35 Testing Slips To 2018
> WASHINGTON — The military’s top weapons tester has been warning for months that the F-35 will not be ready for its final test phase until 2018 at the earliest. On Tuesday, the Pentagon officially acknowledged the schedule slip.



Let's look at each version.

The F-35A will complete the 3I mod later on this year and begin testing 3F.  Making 2017 the projected production.  With the completion of the 3I mod which has slipped the 3F mod completion, it will be ready for production in late 2016 or early 2017.  

The F-35B has the 2 mod completed and can drop weapons and fire the Aim-120D and Aim-9X.  Not real pretty but it is functional in the role that the Marines want it, replacing the AV-8B.  Anything beyond that is just gravy.  

F-35C will be the last one to reach maturity.  The C will get the mods from both the A and B when they are ready.  It will also get some of it's own mods that the other two won't get.  I look for 2018 on this bird.

If you make a weapon for the A it probably won't fit the B or the C since they have a shortened bomb bay.  These are three completely different Fighters although they do look alike at first glance.  You keep lumping them into each other.  If you seperated them, you will find that the production times will be completely different.

Right now, the A model is making quite a dent in other countries that get the first ones off the production line.  Even with the 3F and 3I not being finished, it still won the flyoff between the F-16 and the best Britain has to offer.  Denmark is in love with the F-35A and it's just going to get better.

So you can keep rehashing old outdated and incorrect information but the F-35A seems to make it all a liar.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Daryl Hunt said:


> So you can keep rehashing old outdated and incorrect information but the F-35A seems to make it all a liar.


That is exactly what he appears to be doing. He regurgitates snippets from poor sources that are on the "dump the F-35" bandwagon but doesn't appear to have the knowledge or sources to back them up.

It seems to me the press is starting to round the corner on F-35, and the pilots flying it absolutely love it. Why listen to bloggers who have never even served in the military misconstruing flight tests when you can go right to pilots who actually fly it, like here:

F-35 i nærkamp – hva har jeg lært så langt? (The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?) |

That pilot (from Norway) gives a great summary of F-35 performance, scroll down for English version. It refutes much of the BS Manonthestreet is spewing, and the pilot summarizes with: _"To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."_


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Another post from same pilot here: – Vi må tilpasse oss F-35 – ikke omvendt (We need to adapt to the F-35, not the other way around) |



> We who fly the F-35 on a daily basis are able to conclude the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range, can carry a significantly greater payload and gives the pilot a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16. But we are still in the development phase of the F-35 program. It is therefore only natural that the aircraft still has some teething problems, although critics often use this as «evidence» that the aircraft will never work according to its requirements.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

In other F-35 related news, Denmark just wrapped up it's competition for a new fighter and chose the F-35. According to their report it wasn't even close.

F-35 Wins Denmark Competition: Trounces Super Hornet, Eurofighter













> Conversely, F-35’s newness led to it trouncing its competitors on all other ratings of tactical military value. Its combination of stealth features — to avoid being seen — with advanced sensors and pilot displays — to see better — were cited as carrying the day on survivability and mission effectiveness. The fact that F-35 will be produced in large numbers with regular updates won it the “future development” subcategory.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can keep rehashing old outdated and incorrect information but the F-35A seems to make it all a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what he appears to be doing. He regurgitates snippets from poor sources that are on the "dump the F-35" bandwagon but doesn't appear to have the knowledge or sources to back them up.
> 
> It seems to me the press is starting to round the corner on F-35, and the pilots flying it absolutely love it. Why listen to bloggers who have never even served in the military misconstruing flight tests when you can go right to pilots who actually fly it, like here:
> 
> F-35 i nærkamp – hva har jeg lært så langt? (The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?) |
> 
> That pilot (from Norway) gives a great summary of F-35 performance, scroll down for English version. It refutes much of the BS Manonthestreet is spewing, and the pilot summarizes with: _"To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent."_
Click to expand...


I read today that the Marines are quite satisfied with their F-35B as it is today.  The Marine F-35B has taken over the AV-8Bs mission.  Here are a couple or three things that the Marine Pilots stated.

1.  Less finacky.  The F-35B generates a higher generation rate.

2.  The rebooting doesn't bother the pilots at all.  Yes, you have to reboot twice as much as a F-18 (4 hours v 8 hours; the AV8B can't stay in the air long enough to require a reboot),   If the F-35B requires a reboot, it will be at the very last leg of the mission where there is no big threats.  

3.  The combat range of the F-35B is 800 miles with external tanks.  With the mission of the F-35B taking over the AV-8B there isn't a real problem carrying external tanks in the first half of the mission.

4.  The Stores with the F-35B is twice that of the AV-8B.

The Marines are chomping at the bit to get the F-35B into the Middle East.  It should be a game changer in CAS.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Agreed, and a game changer for the mission profiles an amphib can take on. They go from having a squadron of limited range subsonic attack aircraft to 5th gen fighters that can do air superiority, hit high value targets in strongly defended airspace, perform SEAD, maritime strike, etc.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 only has front aspect stealth.....F-35 will be falling from the sky as SU's shoot down on your low and slow gadget that still cant respond in an alert DRILL.....


The only source I could fine producing numbers to measure stealth on the F-35 is here: Air Combat: Russia’s PAK-FA versus the F-22 and F-35

F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis); 
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, *Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2*; 

For comparison RCS of other fighters is here: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

_A conventional fighter aircraft such as an F-4 has an RCS of about six square meters (m2), and the much larger but low-observable B-2 bomber, which incorporates advanced stealth technologies into its design, by some accounts has an RCS of approximately 0.75 m2 [this is four orders of magintude greater than the widely reported -40dBm2 ]. Some reports give the B-2 a head-on radar cross section no larger than a bird, 0.01 m2 or -20dBm2._

Wth a worst case RCS of 0.01 m2  (equal to best case of B-2 stealth bomber and similar to a bird) your claim that F-35 is only front aspect stealth is clearly false. Granted I have no way to verify any of these numbers, but since you're the one making the climb I'd invite you to post RCS data for F-35 that supports your claim. From what I've seen in this thread I expect no source from your forthcoming, you tend to make a claim then have no interest/ability to defend it.

Waiting on you to prove you weren't talking out of your ass...


----------



## HenryBHough

I can't quite comprehend how one superfighter sitting in the shop waiting for a software upgrade is going to do much against a low-tech actually flying aircraft.  Maybe hoping to hype it out of the sky?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> I can't quite comprehend how one superfighter sitting in the shop waiting for a software upgrade is going to do much against a low-tech actually flying aircraft.  Maybe hoping to hype it out of the sky?



The Marines F-35B is already ready for combat replacing the finacky AV-8Bs mission.  The Marines have requested that they be allowed to use the F-35B in the Middle East for CAS which it's damned capable of doing.And the F-35B has the capability of handling networking plus keep the Russians Fighters and Bombers honest.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

HenryBHough said:


> I can't quite comprehend how one superfighter sitting in the shop waiting for a software upgrade is going to do much against a low-tech actually flying aircraft.  Maybe hoping to hype it out of the sky?


Let me understand you here... this plane is supposed to be in our inventory for 40+ years and your brain cannot imagine a scenario where it can do much against a low-tech aircraft because of some software issues in it's first year of deployment? 

Either way the software isn't preventing it from flying as the usual spin would have you believe, F-35B has some current limitations due to said software issues but is already a far more capable aircraft than the AV-8B it is replacing.


----------



## HenryBHough

Gloves, what part of "one" do you find so challenging?

Our are you so fiscally irresponsible that you think Obamerica can afford more than one (that's "1").

Yeah, I know, contracts and promises.  Like promises of hope.  Like promises of change.


----------



## Manonthestreet

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 only has front aspect stealth.....F-35 will be falling from the sky as SU's shoot down on your low and slow gadget that still cant respond in an alert DRILL.....
> 
> 
> 
> The only source I could fine producing numbers to measure stealth on the F-35 is here: Air Combat: Russia’s PAK-FA versus the F-22 and F-35
> 
> F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
> F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, *Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2*;
> 
> For comparison RCS of other fighters is here: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> _A conventional fighter aircraft such as an F-4 has an RCS of about six square meters (m2), and the much larger but low-observable B-2 bomber, which incorporates advanced stealth technologies into its design, by some accounts has an RCS of approximately 0.75 m2 [this is four orders of magintude greater than the widely reported -40dBm2 ]. Some reports give the B-2 a head-on radar cross section no larger than a bird, 0.01 m2 or -20dBm2._
> 
> Wth a worst case RCS of 0.01 m2  (equal to best case of B-2 stealth bomber and similar to a bird) your claim that F-35 is only front aspect stealth is clearly false. Granted I have no way to verify any of these numbers, but since you're the one making the climb I'd invite you to post RCS data for F-35 that supports your claim. From what I've seen in this thread I expect no source from your forthcoming, you tend to make a claim then have no interest/ability to defend it.
> 
> Waiting on you to prove you weren't talking out of your ass...
Click to expand...

Hundreds of posts here go back and read....alrdy been covered


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't quite comprehend how one superfighter sitting in the shop waiting for a software upgrade is going to do much against a low-tech actually flying aircraft.  Maybe hoping to hype it out of the sky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Marines F-35B is already ready for combat replacing the finacky AV-8Bs mission.  The Marines have requested that they be allowed to use the F-35B in the Middle East for CAS which it's damned capable of doing.And the F-35B has the capability of handling networking plus keep the Russians Fighters and Bombers honest.
Click to expand...

just another lie as none of the variants computer is rdy for prime time


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Hundreds of posts here go back and read....alrdy been covered


Surprise surprise! Manonthestreet is offered the chance to back up his BS and he punts as usual, instead making vague reference to somewhere in this 60 pag thread. So I guess we'll chalk up the "front aspect stealth only" as false, given the only actual data provided showed otherwise.


----------



## there4eyeM

It still seems that, in the age of incredibly rapid technological change, investing such a vast amount in in just one item is not wise.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't quite comprehend how one superfighter sitting in the shop waiting for a software upgrade is going to do much against a low-tech actually flying aircraft.  Maybe hoping to hype it out of the sky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Marines F-35B is already ready for combat replacing the finacky AV-8Bs mission.  The Marines have requested that they be allowed to use the F-35B in the Middle East for CAS which it's damned capable of doing.And the F-35B has the capability of handling networking plus keep the Russians Fighters and Bombers honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another lie as none of the variants computer is rdy for prime time
Click to expand...


Considering the AV-8B doesn't have much of a computer, there is plenty of computer power in the F-35B to handle the mission.  Senator McCain, is that you?


----------



## Manonthestreet

But I thought the Marines were rdy for combat.......ooooops...Why not just buy new Hornets
US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap | IHS Jane's 360
The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Obama is shooting down our Air Superiority with the F-35....which if it ever does arrive will do so as a target


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Obama is shooting down our Air Superiority with the F-35....which if it ever does arrive will do so as a target



The Danes had a flyoff between the Typhoon, F-16 and the F-35A and the F-35 won all categories.  The Marines are slowly parking thier AV-8Bs and flying the F-35B and are extactic.  The USAF has announced that they are going to have the F-35A go in service by the end of the year.Pilots are in awe of the F-35A and B.  I wonder who should be listened to.  Why you of course.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> But I thought the Marines were rdy for combat.......ooooops...Why not just buy new Hornets
> US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap | IHS Jane's 360
> The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.



Of course, a Boeing rep will say that.  Meanwhile, the F-35B has replaced the AV-8B almost completely.  The only difference is, the AV-8B is cleared for Combat but it's not even close to the F-35Bs capability.  All congress has to do is give the thumbs up and the F-35B is flying in the Middle East.  Danged, is that you Senator McCain?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought the Marines were rdy for combat.......ooooops...Why not just buy new Hornets
> US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap | IHS Jane's 360
> The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Boeing rep will say that.  Meanwhile, the F-35B has replaced the AV-8B almost completely.  The only difference is, the AV-8B is cleared for Combat but it's not even close to the F-35Bs capability.  All congress has to do is give the thumbs up and the F-35B is flying in the Middle East.  Danged, is that you Senator McCain?
Click to expand...

BS.....again.....they digging planes out of graveyard to survive.....


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is shooting down our Air Superiority with the F-35....which if it ever does arrive will do so as a target
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Danes had a flyoff between the Typhoon, F-16 and the F-35A and the F-35 won all categories.  The Marines are slowly parking thier AV-8Bs and flying the F-35B and are extactic.  The USAF has announced that they are going to have the F-35A go in service by the end of the year.Pilots are in awe of the F-35A and B.  I wonder who should be listened to.  Why you of course.
Click to expand...

Thats all been refuted.......2018 at earliest........


----------



## Manonthestreet

You print lot of propaganda and yet its still a hanger queen.....afraid of its shadow.......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought the Marines were rdy for combat.......ooooops...Why not just buy new Hornets
> US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap | IHS Jane's 360
> The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Boeing rep will say that.  Meanwhile, the F-35B has replaced the AV-8B almost completely.  The only difference is, the AV-8B is cleared for Combat but it's not even close to the F-35Bs capability.  All congress has to do is give the thumbs up and the F-35B is flying in the Middle East.  Danged, is that you Senator McCain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.....again.....they digging planes out of graveyard to survive.....
Click to expand...


Yes, they are trying to survive.  There are a few reasons to bring out a reserve ready bird out of DM or whereever the Marines park theirs.

1.  The total cost of repair has exceeded 75% over the lifetime of the bird

2.  Trading high time (end of life) birds for others that have more flight time left on the Air Frame

3.  Getting the number of birds higher in order to do the mission.

These are just 3 of the reasons.  The F-18s that they are putting back into service are not boneyarded.  The are kept up and can be ready to fly in a matter of hours.  Each day, they are preflighted just like they were going on a mission.  Then they are buttoned up to keep the sand out of the airframe and engines.  

You fly one due to be taken out of service to the facility, park it, preflight the ones you want, fly them home and clean them up.  Meanwhile, the one you dropped off is parked and sealed for long term storage.

We have F18C/Ds. F-16Cs, F-15C/Ds, B-52H and Gs and more which are in the ready reserve storage.  If we have a Buff crash, they prep one at DM to take it's place.  

But you won't find any F-18E/F/Gs in that reserve.  Only the older F-18C/Ds which the Marines have a bunch of anyway.  The Marines are the red headed step children of the Navy.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

That contract was awarded to Boeing in 2014 (it is the C+ reconstitution program) well before F-35B declared IOC. It has nothing to do with F-35B being "ready" it has to do with numbers due to the delayed timeline of the entire program.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> You print lot of propaganda and yet its still a hanger queen.....afraid of its shadow.......


Here is some more from that Norwegian pilot training on F-35, I guess nobody told him that an internet warrior on USMB says the plane stays in the hangar.

– Vi må tilpasse oss F-35 – ikke omvendt (We need to adapt to the F-35, not the other way around) |


> We who fly the F-35 on a daily basis are able to conclude the following: *The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range, can carry a significantly greater payload and gives the pilot a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16*. But we are still in the development phase of the F-35 program. It is therefore only natural that the aircraft still has some teething problems, although critics often use this as «evidence» that the aircraft will never work according to its requirements.
> 
> From an operational point of view, the challenge is to get complex systems to talk to each other. What is special about the F-35 program is that they decided to put the aircraft into service before it was fully developed. On the one hand that means some systems are still immature, but on the other hand that allows us to take part in a testing process that is much more comprehensive than anything that has been done before. Here at Luke we find that flaws are corrected as they are discovered, and that the aircraft «maneuvering envelope» is being expanded. That means that I am flying a very different aircraft today than when I started flying only two months ago.
> 
> When look back on the program in 2025, I am convinced that Norway and the Norwegian Air Force will have a weapon system that is even more capable than was expected when the government decided to procure the F-35 in 2008.



Hmm who to believe, some pilot actually flying the plane or some guy  on the internet who's military experience is regurgitating opinions from blogs? I'll go with the former.


----------



## xband

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is shooting down our Air Superiority with the F-35....which if it ever does arrive will do so as a target
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Danes had a flyoff between the Typhoon, F-16 and the F-35A and the F-35 won all categories.  The Marines are slowly parking thier AV-8Bs and flying the F-35B and are extactic.  The USAF has announced that they are going to have the F-35A go in service by the end of the year.Pilots are in awe of the F-35A and B.  I wonder who should be listened to.  Why you of course.
Click to expand...


Having seen  F-4 Phantoms in combat and doing flybys of my boat in combat. During the flybys you could not hear them coming and they were less than 10 feet off the deck (10 feet above sea level). They just appeared like phantoms and then I heard them and felt the water spray they left behind. No better fighter in my book.


----------



## Manonthestreet

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You print lot of propaganda and yet its still a hanger queen.....afraid of its shadow.......
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some more from that Norwegian pilot training on F-35, I guess nobody told him that an internet warrior on USMB says the plane stays in the hangar.
> 
> – Vi må tilpasse oss F-35 – ikke omvendt (We need to adapt to the F-35, not the other way around) |
> 
> 
> 
> We who fly the F-35 on a daily basis are able to conclude the following: *The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range, can carry a significantly greater payload and gives the pilot a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16*. But we are still in the development phase of the F-35 program. It is therefore only natural that the aircraft still has some teething problems, although critics often use this as «evidence» that the aircraft will never work according to its requirements.
> 
> From an operational point of view, the challenge is to get complex systems to talk to each other. What is special about the F-35 program is that they decided to put the aircraft into service before it was fully developed. On the one hand that means some systems are still immature, but on the other hand that allows us to take part in a testing process that is much more comprehensive than anything that has been done before. Here at Luke we find that flaws are corrected as they are discovered, and that the aircraft «maneuvering envelope» is being expanded. That means that I am flying a very different aircraft today than when I started flying only two months ago.
> 
> When look back on the program in 2025, I am convinced that Norway and the Norwegian Air Force will have a weapon system that is even more capable than was expected when the government decided to procure the F-35 in 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm who to believe, some pilot actually flying the plane or some guy  on the internet who's military experience is regurgitating opinions from blogs? I'll go with the former.
Click to expand...

Those some guys on the net arent just some guys,,,course you would know that if read the articles and were honest


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought the Marines were rdy for combat.......ooooops...Why not just buy new Hornets
> US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap | IHS Jane's 360
> The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Boeing rep will say that.  Meanwhile, the F-35B has replaced the AV-8B almost completely.  The only difference is, the AV-8B is cleared for Combat but it's not even close to the F-35Bs capability.  All congress has to do is give the thumbs up and the F-35B is flying in the Middle East.  Danged, is that you Senator McCain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.....again.....they digging planes out of graveyard to survive.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are trying to survive.  There are a few reasons to bring out a reserve ready bird out of DM or whereever the Marines park theirs.
> 
> 1.  The total cost of repair has exceeded 75% over the lifetime of the bird
> 
> 2.  Trading high time (end of life) birds for others that have more flight time left on the Air Frame
> 
> 3.  Getting the number of birds higher in order to do the mission.
> 
> These are just 3 of the reasons.  The F-18s that they are putting back into service are not boneyarded.  The are kept up and can be ready to fly in a matter of hours.  Each day, they are preflighted just like they were going on a mission.  Then they are buttoned up to keep the sand out of the airframe and engines.
> 
> You fly one due to be taken out of service to the facility, park it, preflight the ones you want, fly them home and clean them up.  Meanwhile, the one you dropped off is parked and sealed for long term storage.
> 
> We have F18C/Ds. F-16Cs, F-15C/Ds, B-52H and Gs and more which are in the ready reserve storage.  If we have a Buff crash, they prep one at DM to take it's place.
> 
> But you won't find any F-18E/F/Gs in that reserve.  Only the older F-18C/Ds which the Marines have a bunch of anyway.  The Marines are the red headed step children of the Navy.
Click to expand...

Preflighted every day....bs......and the Buff they just dragged out took a while to get back in service, they didnt just call up and fly it right out


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought the Marines were rdy for combat.......ooooops...Why not just buy new Hornets
> US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap | IHS Jane's 360
> The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Boeing rep will say that.  Meanwhile, the F-35B has replaced the AV-8B almost completely.  The only difference is, the AV-8B is cleared for Combat but it's not even close to the F-35Bs capability.  All congress has to do is give the thumbs up and the F-35B is flying in the Middle East.  Danged, is that you Senator McCain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.....again.....they digging planes out of graveyard to survive.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are trying to survive.  There are a few reasons to bring out a reserve ready bird out of DM or whereever the Marines park theirs.
> 
> 1.  The total cost of repair has exceeded 75% over the lifetime of the bird
> 
> 2.  Trading high time (end of life) birds for others that have more flight time left on the Air Frame
> 
> 3.  Getting the number of birds higher in order to do the mission.
> 
> These are just 3 of the reasons.  The F-18s that they are putting back into service are not boneyarded.  The are kept up and can be ready to fly in a matter of hours.  Each day, they are preflighted just like they were going on a mission.  Then they are buttoned up to keep the sand out of the airframe and engines.
> 
> You fly one due to be taken out of service to the facility, park it, preflight the ones you want, fly them home and clean them up.  Meanwhile, the one you dropped off is parked and sealed for long term storage.
> 
> We have F18C/Ds. F-16Cs, F-15C/Ds, B-52H and Gs and more which are in the ready reserve storage.  If we have a Buff crash, they prep one at DM to take it's place.
> 
> But you won't find any F-18E/F/Gs in that reserve.  Only the older F-18C/Ds which the Marines have a bunch of anyway.  The Marines are the red headed step children of the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Preflighted every day....bs......and the Buff they just dragged out took a while to get back in service, they didnt just call up and fly it right out
Click to expand...


We needed another C-124C because there were only two in active service (according to the official record, in 1974, there were none in service but there were two at Elmendorf, AFB).  We ran out of airframe time.  We flew the high timer to DM, change out the lot time engines, and other things, put them on the new bird and flew it home.  Took about a week.

But there are more than one type of AC reserve status.  That was just one type.  When you end up with too many for your pilots to fly (there is also a pilot shortage from time to time) they can elect to put them in Active Reserve Status where they are treated like active aircraft and get preflighted every day.   The Buff was something different.  The Buff is controlled by the Salt Treaties.  If it were to be on Active Reserve Status, it would count against the Nuclear Capable Bomber list.  The Buff cannot be in the ready reserve status.  It has to be completely taken off the line and be visible by Satellite to confirm it's non ready status. 

Heavies are not fighters.  A Fighter can be taken from ready reserve status in about a long day.  And they don't count towards the Salt Treaty.  They were flown into DM and can be flown out of DM after changing all the fluids, among  other things.  Many countries would give their eye teeth to get ahold of the F-16s and F-18s in that status.  And sometimes, the US will sell a few to friendlys.  

Taking the F-18 out of the reserve status is just business as usual.  Been going on as long as DM has existed.  Many decades before the F-18 was even concieved.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> RubberGloveSeduction said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You print lot of propaganda and yet its still a hanger queen.....afraid of its shadow.......
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some more from that Norwegian pilot training on F-35, I guess nobody told him that an internet warrior on USMB says the plane stays in the hangar.
> 
> – Vi må tilpasse oss F-35 – ikke omvendt (We need to adapt to the F-35, not the other way around) |
> 
> 
> 
> We who fly the F-35 on a daily basis are able to conclude the following: *The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range, can carry a significantly greater payload and gives the pilot a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16*. But we are still in the development phase of the F-35 program. It is therefore only natural that the aircraft still has some teething problems, although critics often use this as «evidence» that the aircraft will never work according to its requirements.
> 
> From an operational point of view, the challenge is to get complex systems to talk to each other. What is special about the F-35 program is that they decided to put the aircraft into service before it was fully developed. On the one hand that means some systems are still immature, but on the other hand that allows us to take part in a testing process that is much more comprehensive than anything that has been done before. Here at Luke we find that flaws are corrected as they are discovered, and that the aircraft «maneuvering envelope» is being expanded. That means that I am flying a very different aircraft today than when I started flying only two months ago.
> 
> When look back on the program in 2025, I am convinced that Norway and the Norwegian Air Force will have a weapon system that is even more capable than was expected when the government decided to procure the F-35 in 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm who to believe, some pilot actually flying the plane or some guy  on the internet who's military experience is regurgitating opinions from blogs? I'll go with the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those some guys on the net arent just some guys,,,course you would know that if read the articles and were honest
Click to expand...


Why should anyone else be honest when you aren't.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought the Marines were rdy for combat.......ooooops...Why not just buy new Hornets
> US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap | IHS Jane's 360
> The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Boeing rep will say that.  Meanwhile, the F-35B has replaced the AV-8B almost completely.  The only difference is, the AV-8B is cleared for Combat but it's not even close to the F-35Bs capability.  All congress has to do is give the thumbs up and the F-35B is flying in the Middle East.  Danged, is that you Senator McCain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.....again.....they digging planes out of graveyard to survive.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are trying to survive.  There are a few reasons to bring out a reserve ready bird out of DM or whereever the Marines park theirs.
> 
> 1.  The total cost of repair has exceeded 75% over the lifetime of the bird
> 
> 2.  Trading high time (end of life) birds for others that have more flight time left on the Air Frame
> 
> 3.  Getting the number of birds higher in order to do the mission.
> 
> These are just 3 of the reasons.  The F-18s that they are putting back into service are not boneyarded.  The are kept up and can be ready to fly in a matter of hours.  Each day, they are preflighted just like they were going on a mission.  Then they are buttoned up to keep the sand out of the airframe and engines.
> 
> You fly one due to be taken out of service to the facility, park it, preflight the ones you want, fly them home and clean them up.  Meanwhile, the one you dropped off is parked and sealed for long term storage.
> 
> We have F18C/Ds. F-16Cs, F-15C/Ds, B-52H and Gs and more which are in the ready reserve storage.  If we have a Buff crash, they prep one at DM to take it's place.
> 
> But you won't find any F-18E/F/Gs in that reserve.  Only the older F-18C/Ds which the Marines have a bunch of anyway.  The Marines are the red headed step children of the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Preflighted every day....bs......and the Buff they just dragged out took a while to get back in service, they didnt just call up and fly it right out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We needed another C-124C because there were only two in active service (according to the official record, in 1974, there were none in service but there were two at Elmendorf, AFB).  We ran out of airframe time.  We flew the high timer to DM, change out the lot time engines, and other things, put them on the new bird and flew it home.  Took about a week.
> 
> But there are more than one type of AC reserve status.  That was just one type.  When you end up with too many for your pilots to fly (there is also a pilot shortage from time to time) they can elect to put them in Active Reserve Status where they are treated like active aircraft and get preflighted every day.   The Buff was something different.  The Buff is controlled by the Salt Treaties.  If it were to be on Active Reserve Status, it would count against the Nuclear Capable Bomber list.  The Buff cannot be in the ready reserve status.  It has to be completely taken off the line and be visible by Satellite to confirm it's non ready status.
> 
> Heavies are not fighters.  A Fighter can be taken from ready reserve status in about a long day.  And they don't count towards the Salt Treaty.  They were flown into DM and can be flown out of DM after changing all the fluids, among  other things.  Many countries would give their eye teeth to get ahold of the F-16s and F-18s in that status.  And sometimes, the US will sell a few to friendlys.
> 
> Taking the F-18 out of the reserve status is just business as usual.  Been going on as long as DM has existed.  Many decades before the F-18 was even concieved.
Click to expand...

Well ya inched closer to the truth....try again......if ya looked at the pick.....no way they are preflighted everyday


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Boeing rep will say that.  Meanwhile, the F-35B has replaced the AV-8B almost completely.  The only difference is, the AV-8B is cleared for Combat but it's not even close to the F-35Bs capability.  All congress has to do is give the thumbs up and the F-35B is flying in the Middle East.  Danged, is that you Senator McCain?
> 
> 
> 
> BS.....again.....they digging planes out of graveyard to survive.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are trying to survive.  There are a few reasons to bring out a reserve ready bird out of DM or whereever the Marines park theirs.
> 
> 1.  The total cost of repair has exceeded 75% over the lifetime of the bird
> 
> 2.  Trading high time (end of life) birds for others that have more flight time left on the Air Frame
> 
> 3.  Getting the number of birds higher in order to do the mission.
> 
> These are just 3 of the reasons.  The F-18s that they are putting back into service are not boneyarded.  The are kept up and can be ready to fly in a matter of hours.  Each day, they are preflighted just like they were going on a mission.  Then they are buttoned up to keep the sand out of the airframe and engines.
> 
> You fly one due to be taken out of service to the facility, park it, preflight the ones you want, fly them home and clean them up.  Meanwhile, the one you dropped off is parked and sealed for long term storage.
> 
> We have F18C/Ds. F-16Cs, F-15C/Ds, B-52H and Gs and more which are in the ready reserve storage.  If we have a Buff crash, they prep one at DM to take it's place.
> 
> But you won't find any F-18E/F/Gs in that reserve.  Only the older F-18C/Ds which the Marines have a bunch of anyway.  The Marines are the red headed step children of the Navy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Preflighted every day....bs......and the Buff they just dragged out took a while to get back in service, they didnt just call up and fly it right out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We needed another C-124C because there were only two in active service (according to the official record, in 1974, there were none in service but there were two at Elmendorf, AFB).  We ran out of airframe time.  We flew the high timer to DM, change out the lot time engines, and other things, put them on the new bird and flew it home.  Took about a week.
> 
> But there are more than one type of AC reserve status.  That was just one type.  When you end up with too many for your pilots to fly (there is also a pilot shortage from time to time) they can elect to put them in Active Reserve Status where they are treated like active aircraft and get preflighted every day.   The Buff was something different.  The Buff is controlled by the Salt Treaties.  If it were to be on Active Reserve Status, it would count against the Nuclear Capable Bomber list.  The Buff cannot be in the ready reserve status.  It has to be completely taken off the line and be visible by Satellite to confirm it's non ready status.
> 
> Heavies are not fighters.  A Fighter can be taken from ready reserve status in about a long day.  And they don't count towards the Salt Treaty.  They were flown into DM and can be flown out of DM after changing all the fluids, among  other things.  Many countries would give their eye teeth to get ahold of the F-16s and F-18s in that status.  And sometimes, the US will sell a few to friendlys.
> 
> Taking the F-18 out of the reserve status is just business as usual.  Been going on as long as DM has existed.  Many decades before the F-18 was even concieved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well ya inched closer to the truth....try again......if ya looked at the pick.....no way they are preflighted everyday
Click to expand...


Then they are going after the Pickled birds.  These can be made flight ready (not combat ready) in only a few days.  This has been going on for as long as DM and the Navy/Marine equivalent.  This has  been going on since 1942.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Flight rdy really isnt good enough is it....even F-35 is flight rdy...combat rdy is the prob


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> course you would know that if read the articles and were honest


Here lies your problem, you're all caught up in a bunch of shallow blog posts of the anti-F35 echo chamber, this is why you can never back up any of your claims with any facts.

For example, I showed the F-35 RCS for side and back, which directly contradicts your claim that F-35 is only front aspect stealth. Instead of making any attempt to defend your BS you just tell me to search through a 60 page thread to find it somewhere. Reason = you have no idea what the RCS numbers for F-35 are, you're just regurgitating something you've heard but can't manage anything more.


----------



## Manonthestreet

HOw do you know...you obviously havent read them....btw Janes is one of premier Defense news sites in the world


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Flight rdy really isnt good enough is it....even F-35 is flight rdy...combat rdy is the prob



Let's compare the unpickled F-18 to the F-35.

Both won't have all the MODS.  ON the F-35 it's called a MOD.  On an F-18 flown to it's new home station after it's unpickled it's called TCTO.  Both amounts to about the same thing.  Now, bright boy Troll, tell me what a TCTO is.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> HOw do you know...you obviously havent read them....btw Janes is one of premier Defense news sites in the world


Nope, I gave numbers and a source right here:
The F-35 vs. the Russian Su-35 and the PAK FA | RealClearDefense

F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, *Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2*

What have we seen from you? Absolutely nothing, just a claim of front only stealth that has been refuted with data. It is pretty funny to watch you bluster around knowing you have no source and haven't a clue what the rear/side RCS of an F-35 is, so keep it up, great to watch a phony squirm as he's being exposed.


----------



## Manonthestreet

ALl mine have sources too and they aint nameless blogs......stealth encompasses more than RCS .......just compare a pic of the F-22 with your piece of fraud...notice all the bumps on top and bottom that F-35 doesnt have......big degradation not to mention your IR sig is off the charts due to that big open flamethrower .....oooooops


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> ALl mine have sources too and they aint nameless blogs......stealth encompasses more than RCS .......just compare a pic of the F-22 with your piece of fraud...notice all the bumps on top and bottom that F-35 doesnt have......big degradation not to mention your IR sig is off the charts due to that big open flamethrower .....oooooops



Then present your data in the form of a Cite or two or three.  Simple as that.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Alrdy done that multiple times,,,,,,,,from multiple sites multiple authors....one more will do what..........


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Alrdy done that multiple times,,,,,,,,from multiple sites multiple authors....one more will do what..........


One more will end this argument in your favor. In the time it has taken you to duck/dodge/weave/avoid you could have just posted your source.

This amount of effort you take to avoid the simple task of backing up your claim, which something anyone who was actually confident in their argument would do to shut us down, is an obvious indication you have no idea what the RCS numbers are for F-35. You're a phony, and only someone who knew they were a phony would accept being exposed if they had any actual data to lean on.

So I ask again, what is the side/rear RCS of F-35? Surely you know, since a few posts ago you said it wasn't stealthy.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Since you told me to search this 60+ page thread to see where you gave numbers on F-35s RCS, I did. Thanks for the suggestion! Results for "RCS" in this thread here: Search Results for Query: RCS | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oops. Nowhere do you cite RCS of an F-35, do you have any suggestions on how I can refine this search to find these hard numbers you base your argument on?



Manonthestreet said:


> not to mention your IR sig is off the charts due to that big open flamethrower .....oooooops


Okay, show the charts. What is the F-35s IR signature compared to F-22 and 4th generation fighters. Surely you know the numbers and have access to these charts since you're able to confidently talk about where F-35 sits on them. Or course you won't produce anything, you'll claim you already did and spend far more effort trying to avoid being called out than actually just posting the numbers.

So on top of F-35 RCS, we now await your data on F-35 IR signature.


----------



## xband

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flight rdy really isnt good enough is it....even F-35 is flight rdy...combat rdy is the prob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare the unpickled F-18 to the F-35.
> 
> Both won't have all the MODS.  ON the F-35 it's called a MOD.  On an F-18 flown to it's new home station after it's unpickled it's called TCTO.  Both amounts to about the same thing.  Now, bright boy Troll, tell me what a TCTO is.
Click to expand...


Let's go there. What is a Bogie Foxtrot Five?


----------



## xband

xband said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flight rdy really isnt good enough is it....even F-35 is flight rdy...combat rdy is the prob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare the unpickled F-18 to the F-35.
> 
> Both won't have all the MODS.  ON the F-35 it's called a MOD.  On an F-18 flown to it's new home station after it's unpickled it's called TCTO.  Both amounts to about the same thing.  Now, bright boy Troll, tell me what a TCTO is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go there. What is a Bogie Foxtrot Five?
Click to expand...


Or for that matter check sum?


----------



## I amso IR

Today, 6/21/16, Defense News published an article indicating all 88 missions tests/excercises conducted at Mountain Home AFB, this month, had been completed with no computer failures Two problems related to other air craft problems were experienced and corrected with missions completed. The AF worthiness approval will be August. This according to the article from Defense News, today.


----------



## HenryBHough

It's looking more like the F35 MIGHT actually appear - and even fly - at Farnborough in July!

Part, no doubt, of the reason they have radically changed the rules for the demonstration/acrobatics portion of the show.  To protect the innocent.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

HenryBHough said:


> Part, no doubt, of the reason they have radically changed the rules for the demonstration/acrobatics portion of the show.  To protect the innocent.


What did they change?


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

I amso IR said:


> Today, 6/21/16, Defense News published an article indicating all 88 missions tests/excercises conducted at Mountain Home AFB, this month, had been completed with no computer failures Two problems related to other air craft problems were experienced and corrected with missions completed. The AF worthiness approval will be August. This according to the article from Defense News, today.


Well damn now the rabid anti-F35 lackwits will have to find a new issue to jump all over as something that makes the plan unusable and can never be fixed.


----------



## xband

Did the F-35 evolve from Skunk Works? If so it is a good airplane.


----------



## HenryBHough

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> What did they change?



Gutted the show.  Eliminated low level fly-by and so severely limited aerobatics that Britain's Red Arrows have announced they'll do a greatly shortened exhibition and concentrate on some sort of ground presentation.

At a friggin' *airs*how.....


----------



## I amso IR

Aw, come on HBH, smile and be happy. "The Plane, The Plane"!  Now prepare to go greet the guests.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

HenryBHough said:


> Gutted the show.  Eliminated low level fly-by and so severely limited aerobatics that Britain's Red Arrows have announced they'll do a greatly shortened exhibition and concentrate on some sort of ground presentation.


It look like that was implemented for all air shows following the Shoreham disaster last year. They already had to cancel many airshows because of it.

_The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has increased the minimum altitude at which ex-military jets can perform aerobatic manoeuvres, increased the minimum distance of separation between a civil display and a crowd, and strengthened the requirements for post-display reports in a bid to improve the quality of feedback on safety issues._


----------



## HenryBHough

Back to hotel from Farnborough.

F35 DID fly.  Was NOT  on view - flew in from elsewhere, did some low passes and demoed hover.  No landings or takeoffs.  On ground had a "replica" with srairs for cockpit view.  Flight was Marine Corps version.  They 3000 will be built most sold ro "allies" if we have any...

Will post pix later after I clean them up and reduce res for lower b/w requirements.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Not even a vertical climb out of sight.......no show...will people still go?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Not even a vertical climb out of sight.......no show...will people still go?



Farnsborough is a favorite thing.  It's about all birdies, not just one.  Here are a few places to read about it (I assume you can read)

The F-35 jet fighter hovers over Farnborough

Farnborough International Airshow Could Welcome up to Five F-35s at Summer Showcase | F-35 Lightning II

The B is more spactacular close to the ground so it's going to make the biggest hit.  The A can't show off it's greatest assets.  

Get over  yourself, bud.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Guy just said there was not much to watch........try to keep up


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Guy just said there was not much to watch........try to keep up



I am keeping up just fine.  there wasn't ''t much to watch because of the British Limitations.  Only you would come up with something negative about the F-35 which did exactly what the Brits allowed.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I asked a question about the show........one of few times I didnt outright"ding" your waste of tax dollars on a target


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> I asked a question about the show........one of few times I didnt outright"ding" your waste of tax dollars on a target



Had I not interjected, you would have seen it as a sign of weakness and went  off once again.  Facts do get in your way.


----------



## Manonthestreet

had you not interjected likely I wouldnt have posted anything else in this thread......your delusions are showing


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> had you not interjected likely I wouldnt have posted anything else in this thread......your delusions are showing



Considering most of us know you far too well, you sure do lie out your keister.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Daryl Hunt said:


> Considering most of us know you far too well, you sure do lie out your keister.


Not only does ManOnTheStreet lie out of his keister, he demonstrates little knowledge on the thread topic other that regurgitating tidbits from anti-F35 hit pieces.

When ManOnTheStreet is asked for side/rear RCS info to back up his claim F-35 is only stealth from the front? He punts.
When ManOnTheStreet is asked how it's IR measures compares to other planes to back up his claim it has no IR reduction? He punts.

He doesn't actually know anything about the plane, which is why he retreats and hides from any discussion more than puddle deep that requires him actually providing data. With F-35 software maturing, pilots raving about it, and the plane turning in dominating performances in flight testing versus aggressor ManOnTheStreet is eating more crow and looking more stupid every day.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Some people can't see past a good sales pitch.  Math doesn't lie.



You called it. 24-0.

AIRSHOW-Lockheed F-35 jets ace exercises as U.S. readies for combat use


> "I can't wait to get the airplane out to the Pacific," Lieutenant General Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told Reuters in an interview. "It's tailor-made for that part of the world with its fifth generation capability and its expeditionary capabilities to land on a small ship or strip, and flow back and forth between those."
> 
> Davis says the F-35s are doing far better in combat exercises than expected, achieving so-called "kill ratios" of 24 to zero, and surviving every sort of simulated enemy attack. "It is like watching a velociraptor going through. Everything in its path is killed," he told reporters.





> He said the jets' performance in exercises like Red Flag showed that onboard radar sensors and electronic warfare equipment would give them a huge edge in future wars. While one-third to one-half of other aircraft would routinely be "killed" during tough exercises, no F-35s had been downed, he said.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

I think we should dedicate this thread to laughing at all the bullshit Manonthestreet has posted that has been proven false with available data and more recent F-35 performance in exercises. He's got a lot of crow to eat, so let's start serving it up, and I think it'll be an interesting exercise in how someone got caught up in the anti-F-35 hype so much that they become emotionally vested and were willing to believe anything they read, to lie, mislead, and move goalposts at the expense of common sense.



Manonthestreet said:


> Except you can't. Cause not stealthy .....not to mention only plane that still trails black smoke is B-52 because of old engines.





Manonthestreet said:


> f-35 cant dogfight and aint stealthy........thing is a sitting duck.





Manonthestreet said:


> Not stealthy, no supercruise ergo not fifth generation fighter.





Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 only has front aspect stealth.....F-35 will be falling from the sky as SU's shoot down on your low and slow gadget that still cant respond in an alert DRILL.....



Here is RCS data, from Air Combat: Russia’s PAK-FA versus the F-22 and F-35

Radar Cross Sections cited (X-band):
F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2;
PAK-FA All Aspect = 0.01 m2;
Su-35-1 Front Aspect= 2 m2.

Apparently Manonfstreet's definition of "not stealthy" means a 0.001 m2 and 0.01 m2 side aspect. It appears he realized he'd overstepped his BS and eventually retreated to the "front aspect only" position later, but as we can see from above numbers that is equally BS. We'll also note despite repeated invitations to post numbers supporting his no stealth claims he prefers to spend more time typing that others should find links he's allegedly posted than he could have just posting his proof. Clearly he has none and has been caught lying.

We'll turn now to the quote by General Hostage on F-35, from an interview often cited by those critical of the F-35:

_"*The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s*. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but *it can beat the F-22 in stealth"*
_
Manonthestreet, his hands on experience being that of keyboard warrior, must also believe he knows more about the plane he says isn't stealthy than an Air Force general intimately familiar with the program who notes it's outstanding stealth characteristics.

Stay tuned next week when we look at Manonthestreet's many claims of F-35 sitting duck that will get shot down, compared to recent dominant flight performance versus aggressors flying F-15s and commentary from pilots who have been flying F-35 against other aircraft.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.



Manonthestreet said:


> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101





Manonthestreet said:


> your low and slow gadget





Manonthestreet said:


> I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile





Manonthestreet said:


> your low and slow ass.





Manonthestreet said:


> Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.



"Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.

"Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...

Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |


> My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?
> 
> *I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well.* Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.
> 
> In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).



We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> your low and slow gadget
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> your low and slow ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.
> 
> "Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...
> 
> Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?
> 
> *I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well.* Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.
> 
> In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.
Click to expand...


That crow dinner comes as early as next week when two squadrons of F-35As goes operational.


----------



## Kristian

Indofred said:


> Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
> 
> PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.



F-16 C/D and F-18 E/F and Rafale and Jas Gripen E/F and PAK-50 are better than F-4.

For sure. Exsatly.


----------



## Manonthestreet

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> your low and slow gadget
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> your low and slow ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.
> 
> "Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...
> 
> Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?
> 
> *I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well.* Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.
> 
> In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.
Click to expand...

F-35 does not have supercruise.....omg


----------



## Kristian

Maybe not Rafale but I liked themes 3 bomb in middle off course also you liked. Four air crafts better than F-4 true story.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Kristian said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
> 
> PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-16 C/D and F-18 E/F and Rafale and Jas Gripen E/F and PAK-50 are better than F-4.
> 
> For sure. Exsatly.
Click to expand...


I question the F-18 and the Rafale whether they are better in carrier configuration.  On of the limiting factors on the F-4, it was carrier meaning it carried a beefed up fuselage and landing gear which is required for carrier duty.  All carrier qualified fighters have a distinct disadvantage when going against land based fighters.  

Plus, the FA-50 is still a pipe dream.  If the Russians can't come up with the bucks, it won't go into production.  They are finding out the cost of building even an almost Gen 5 fighter is damned expensive and beyond their purse strings.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> RubberGloveSeduction said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> your low and slow gadget
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> your low and slow ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.
> 
> "Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...
> 
> Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?
> 
> *I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well.* Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.
> 
> In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F-35 does not have supercruise.....omg
Click to expand...


That is the first thing you have ever said about the F-35.  That's one in a row.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 does not have supercruise.....omg


You are correct, nice work!

However what I was addressing was your claim that it was too slow. The ability to make a 150 mile mach 1.2 dash without afterburner is a far more useful application of speed in real world missions than anything a F-16 or F-18 can pull off. I also provided direct quotes from a F-35 pilot who says the F-35 accelerates better, climbs better, and feels like a faster plane than the F-16 that he has thousands of hours of experience flying. I don't suppose you have much experience flying the F-16 or F-35 to counter that, you've got some blog posts where some people who don't fly are calculating engine thrust and aircraft weight to attempt to determine it's performance. I think I'll trust the actual pilot more.

This makes your "too slow" chant ridiculously naive, you were just parroting something you'd heard without the facts. I'd also invite you to take a look at statistics on modern air-to-air combat kills and what speed missiles were launched. You'll find sub mach 1 to be your answer. Your repeatedly clinging to a top speed of F-35 then stupidly comparing it to clean configuration of other fighters that would never be flying clean made no sense.

Don't worry we're not done with you, you've got so much tripe in this thread to pick apart, you're a great example of someone caught up in the anti-F35 echo chamber... big on talk, short on facts. Enjoy your crow.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Daryl Hunt said:


> Plus, the FA-50 is still a pipe dream.


Yep, once India started getting shaky that thing thing was even more doomed. The US will probably have more aircraft carriers than Russia PAK-FAs.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> No just the facts...your ceiling is low Forties


Apparently you wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you upside the head, so to help out:

From the offical United States Air Force website at:
F-35A Lightning II Conventional Takeoff and Landing Variant > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

*Primary Function:* Multirole fighter
*Prime Contractor:* Lockheed Martin
*Power Plant:* One Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 turbofan engine
*Thrust:* 43,000 pounds
*Wingspan:* 35 feet (10.7 meters)
*Length:* 51 feet (15.7 meters)
*Height:* 14 feet (4.38 meters)
*Maximum Takeoff Weight:* 70,000 pound class
*Fuel Capacity: Internal:* 18,498 pounds
*Payload:* 18,000 pounds (8,160 kilograms)
*Speed:* Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)
*Range:* More than 1,350 miles with internal fuel (1,200+ nautical miles), unlimited with aerial refueling
*Ceiling:* *Above 50,000 feet* (15 kilometers)
*Armament:* Internal and external capability. Munitions carried vary based on mission requirements.
*Crew:* One

To take this further, one of the listed elements of Block 3F software changing flight control limits to raise the operating ceiling from the 40k to 50k. That would be somewhat silly to do if the plane can't fly at 50k feet. Turns out you were full of shit yet again.

More crow coming for Manonthestreet.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> It wasnt designed to kill the enemy


Once again people actually using the plane have different results than Manonthestreet.

F-35B Tactics Evolve As Pilots' Understanding Of Tech Matures


> As part of the test, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 performed an armed reconnaissance mission that can sometimes take AV-8B Harrier and F-18 Hornet pilots all day to complete.
> 
> “These guys went out there and they found all the targets very quickly and killed all the targets,” he said, noting the early proficiency of the squadron.
> “Most importantly, … we put a radar [surface-to-air missile] out in the objective area. In the old days we’d have to go take care of the radar SAM, get somebody in to go take care of that because you don’t do armed reconnaissance, which is patrolling for targets out there, unless you’ve got a permissive threat environment and you beat that threat. These guys went out with the SAM in the area and did that and they killed the SAM.”





> The first was done with fewer planes than Davis thought was needed, but otherwise went according to plan. He said the pilots were given a scenario that was “very high-end, off the ship, go into the jaws of death, double-digit SAMs, fighter threat, and go after a very strategic target on the ground. I watched them do it as a foursome, which normally I would say it would be 13 or 14 airplanes normally, what I would do as [commanding officer] of the weapons school, which I was. … They killed the fighters, they killed the SAMs, they killed the target, they came home.





> The second drill, though, did not go as planned – in the best possible way, Davis said. The planes were to fly a close-air support mission through clouds at 1,000 feet, with the planes in the 3F configuration that allows for pylons to externally carry 18,000 pounds of bombs.
> 
> “I’m out there, the commandant of the Marine Corps is out there, I want to impress the commandant,” Davis said.
> “This first scenario was awesome, and then right before the second scenario I said, are we ready to go? And this young major comes up … he goes, ‘we’re not going to do exactly what you want us to do.’ I’m like [eyes grow wide]. “Because we didn’t think the tasking was challenging enough. So we’ve got two that are slick and two that are loaded up as bomb trucks. We can do the job sir, don’t worry.’”
> 
> So two planes forfeited their external carry capacity in exchange for stealth, and “it was a work of art,” Davis said. The planes hit all their targets in five and a half minutes, with the four planes passing images through the clouds and successfully taking out the missile threat early on.



So we are at our usual dilemma, believing Manonthestreet who's combat experience is regurgitating blogs or USMC commanders watching missions happen saying F-35s are killing everything in front of them? I guess we'll go with the latter, and note that once again Manonthestreet is choking on crow. Everything he's said is proving to be completely wrong as more and more results come in from pilots using the F-35, and we see how utterly stupid he looks.

We're not done with Manonthestreet, more to come...


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Except you can't. Cause not stealthy





Manonthestreet said:


> aint stealthy





Manonthestreet said:


> Not stealthy




The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says

*The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says*

During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane. “If they never saw us, they couldn’t target us,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.
...
“When we go to train, it’s really an unfair fight for the guys who are simulating the adversaries,” Watkins continued. “We’ve been amazed by what we can do when we go up against fourth-gen adversaries in our training environment, in the air and on the ground.” Watkins said he can take four F-35s and “be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we’re at and they can’t see us and they can’t target us.”


If there is a way, any way that *Manonthestreet* could look more stupid after repeatedly claiming the F-35 isn't stealthy I sure can't imagine it. More crow coming up...


----------



## Pain&Progress

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...


Seems like the only thing the critics of the F-35 know about military airpower is fighter vs. fighter dog fighting; but there’s a lot more to it than that.

One of the lessons learned they love to point out is that we didn’t have fighters designed to dogfight when we entered the Vietnam War, and they are correct. What they don’t explain is why. A war with the Soviets at the time was all about nuclear exchange and who can take the other side’s cities and their ability to wage war while protecting their own cities. Fighters were not considered a threat to the US because they don’t have the range to reach us. Russian bombers flying over the North Pole was the real threat for fighters of the time so they were optimized for intercepting bombers. They could get up to altitude quickly and were fast so that they could intercept the incoming bombers as far away as possible. They were designed to a purpose.

The F-35 is also designed to a purpose. The advancement of surface to air missile technology has made penetration of enemy controlled airspace costly and problematic, and the US battle strategy is dependent on establishing air superiority. Current US aircraft can’t penetrate air defense zones without getting shot out of the sky. But with the F-35 the scenario is: 1. The F-22’s move in and sweep the area of enemy fighters. 2. The F-35’s swoop in and take out the air defense installations, detect enemy locations, and transmit them to friendly forces. 3. Cruise missiles and traditional aircraft such as the F-15E, F-16, A-10, Apache’s, etc. come in and wreak havoc on the enemy forces. 4. Ground operations begin. Without the F-35 we have a hole in our order of battle.

When it comes to other fighters the F-35 tactic is not to get into a turning dogfight but rather to use its ability to detect the other guy first and engage him with long range missiles before the F-35 is detected. Admittedly a flaw of the F-35 is that it is dependent on stealth, sensor, and missile technology in order to engage other aircraft; it’s basically a flying antiaircraft battery. The solution is to adopt F-22 technology for the F-35 but this would make the F-35 too expensive to purchase in the numbers that they are needed.

At its heart the F-35 is a penetration and strike fighter.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Thats all been refuted.......2018 at earliest........


Have you ever been right about anything? Like... ever?

USAF declaring IOC Aug 2 2016. Dumbfuck.


----------



## Kristian

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats all been refuted.......2018 at earliest........
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever been right about anything? Like... ever?
> 
> USAF declaring IOC Aug 2 2016. Dumbfuck.
Click to expand...


*2018 U.S. earliest sell ot outlandish countries.

2024-2037 U.S. sell massive to home country. 2300 pieces of the F-35's.*


----------



## Kristian

*And big money talk by 1 pieces air craft.*


----------



## Kristian

*Who than selfy and Which are the U.S. sell F-35's to in world's.

Give my fact any.*


----------



## Kristian

*F-35 fighters combat ready, Air Force says - CNNPolitics.com*

*Ready for action these F-35's.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Kristian said:


> *F-35 fighters combat ready, Air Force says - CNNPolitics.com*
> 
> *Ready for action these F-35's.*



Don't confuse them with facts.  It's an unfair way to debate.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Kristian said:


> *Who than selfy and Which are the U.S. sell F-35's to in world's.
> 
> Give my fact any.*



It's been traditional for the rest of the world to wait until the USAF announces a bird as operational before they buy.  That just happened today.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Unfortunately there is no reason to dogfight the F-35 since every other fighter flys higher merely shoot it down


This post has logic one would expect from a 12 year old. Following along, we can assume you believe a MIG-25 merely flies higher to shoot down a F-22. Of course a MIG-29 just flies higher to shoot down a F-16, but damn someone forgot to tell all those MIG-29 pilots that were shot down by F-16s that our keyboard warrior Manonthestreet has figured it all out.

Maybe you can walk us through this scenario. There must be some reality where  Russian fighters cruise along happily at 60k, probably at full afterburners since retards like you get all giddy about top speed as well. Nevermind statistics on air-to-air kills showing they happen much lower and at transonic speeds we'll go with your max altitude SU-30 pretending to be a SR-71 for whatever reason. Your plane, with inferior radar and sensors detects an F-35 which is by actual recent pilot accounts so stealthy they have difficulty training avoidance, gets in position to fire a missile which the F-35 with the best passive sensors of any aircraft in the world doesn't see coming. Splash one F-35.

Reality check = F-35 sees any 4th gen fighter from way outside their own detection range, moves into position for optimal shot, and the first indication the Flanker has of F-35 is in the area is the warning that a rapidly closing AMRAAM just went active. In your high-and-fast fantasy the Flanker pilot's turn radius will be about the size of Texas so their first and only option is dive or die. If they do escape AMRAAM #1 the maneuvers they used will put them in such a kinetic disadvantage when the second AMRAAM arrives they are cooked.

Your stupidity in this thread knows no bounds.

Of course it is possible for F-35s to be shot down by 4th gen aircraft, but to imply superior max altitude or top speed outweighs all the advantages the F-35 of VLO and sensors is just naive, and the more pilots are actually in the seat using the plane the more we hear confirmation of this.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> See ya still have nothing but your uninformed bs....yeah all my links,  how many now....20-30...... all from questionable  sources...... Lllmmmaaaoooo





Manonthestreet said:


> Some people can't see past a good sales pitch.  Math doesn't lie.



Uninformed? Your links? Math? Funny how you've suddenly lost interest in this thread as F-35s become operational and more pilots actually flying it are proving what a gibbering idiot you were. Dozens of posts from you about how this plane won't be able to perform, isn't stealthy, can't fight, can't run, etc. your history in this thread makes you look like the biggest fool on the internet.

Here is your latest serving of crow, via survey of 31 fighter pilots who unlike the armchair experts in your blog links actually fly the F-35.  Eat up fool. Manonthestreet

Heritage Foundation: Operational Assessment of the F-35A

Each pilot was then asked to select which ﬁght-er he would rather ﬂy in combat if he were to face alone ﬂying the other jet in six diﬀerent air-to-air situations. (See Chart 2.) If the pilot selected an F-15C in a short-range setup, for example, he felt he could outperform a pilot of equal abilities in the F-35A. *Pilots selected the F-35A 100 percent of the time in beyond-visual-range situations and over 80 percent of dogﬁghting situations where energy and maneuverability are critical to success*.The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority ﬁghter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment—even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now ﬂying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC, this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns are incredible and deliver a constant28 degrees/second. *When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”*






Nor would other ﬁghters fare well if pitted against the F-35A in aerial combat. *In an air-to-air BVR situation, the F-35 can locate and target every other combat-conﬁgured jet before their pilots become aware of the F-35’s presence*. *Even if one of the other ﬁghters survived a BVR engagement, the external(un-jettisonable) pods, racks, and rails of each opponent would give a completely clean, combat-conﬁgured F-35A a distinct advantage.*






Conclusion
The F-35 is an expensive platform, but it is notably more eﬀective and in many cases cheaper than any other four-plus-generation multirole ﬁghter in the world.* No other nation’s ﬁelded ﬁghter would fare well in an engagement against the F-35,* and no other multirole ﬁghter currently on the market  would  survive,  much less thrive, in a modern-day high-threat environment. The United States needs to fulﬁll the F-35A’s complete ﬁelding and look at the concurrent development process that brought it to fruition as a model for similar rapidly growing systems and technologies.
- John Venable,
_a former F-16C pilot with 3,000 hours of ﬁghter time_


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> See ya still have nothing but your uninformed bs....yeah all my links,  how many now....20-30...... all from questionable  sources...... Lllmmmaaaoooo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people can't see past a good sales pitch.  Math doesn't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uninformed? Your links? Math? Funny how you've suddenly lost interest in this thread as F-35s become operational and more pilots actually flying it are proving what a gibbering idiot you were. Dozens of posts from you about how this plane won't be able to perform, isn't stealthy, can't fight, can't run, etc. your history in this thread makes you look like the biggest fool on the internet.
> 
> Here is your latest serving of crow, via survey of 31 fighter pilots who unlike the armchair experts in your blog links actually fly the F-35.  Eat up fool. Manonthestreet
> 
> Heritage Foundation: Operational Assessment of the F-35A
> 
> Each pilot was then asked to select which ﬁght-er he would rather ﬂy in combat if he were to face alone ﬂying the other jet in six diﬀerent air-to-air situations. (See Chart 2.) If the pilot selected an F-15C in a short-range setup, for example, he felt he could outperform a pilot of equal abilities in the F-35A. *Pilots selected the F-35A 100 percent of the time in beyond-visual-range situations and over 80 percent of dogﬁghting situations where energy and maneuverability are critical to success*.The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority ﬁghter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment—even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now ﬂying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC, this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns are incredible and deliver a constant28 degrees/second. *When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor would other ﬁghters fare well if pitted against the F-35A in aerial combat. *In an air-to-air BVR situation, the F-35 can locate and target every other combat-conﬁgured jet before their pilots become aware of the F-35’s presence*. *Even if one of the other ﬁghters survived a BVR engagement, the external(un-jettisonable) pods, racks, and rails of each opponent would give a completely clean, combat-conﬁgured F-35A a distinct advantage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> The F-35 is an expensive platform, but it is notably more eﬀective and in many cases cheaper than any other four-plus-generation multirole ﬁghter in the world.* No other nation’s ﬁelded ﬁghter would fare well in an engagement against the F-35,* and no other multirole ﬁghter currently on the market  would  survive,  much less thrive, in a modern-day high-threat environment. The United States needs to fulﬁll the F-35A’s complete ﬁelding and look at the concurrent development process that brought it to fruition as a model for similar rapidly growing systems and technologies.
> - John Venable,
> _a former F-16C pilot with 3,000 hours of ﬁghter time_
Click to expand...


Just before the F-35A went operational, they removed the G restriction of 7 gees and now it's 9 gees.  And 9 gees is about all a pilot can handle even with a G suit.


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## Manonthestreet

The Pentagon’s top weapons tester is once again sounding the alarm over the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), warning that significant deficiencies with the aircraft’s gun, challenges integrating the short-range AIM-9X missile and unresolved software bugs could delay fielding of the fighter’s full ...  Weapons Tester Cites Further F-35 Challenges


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The Pentagon’s top weapons tester is once again sounding the alarm over the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), warning that significant deficiencies with the aircraft’s gun, challenges integrating the short-range AIM-9X missile and unresolved software bugs could delay fielding of the fighter’s full ...  Weapons Tester Cites Further F-35 Challenges



I read that.  It's hard to tell who is being quoted.  Is it the tester or the author?  The A and the B model passed all the criteria.  The C is brand spanking new.  It still has to prove itself.  But the report from the carrier they are on is very promising.  It hasn't been reported that the C has gone into weapons but it has passed with flying colors on landing, traps, and go arounds.  It's been flawless.

As for the gun, ain't going to happen this year.  Once again, you are taking the B and the C and badmouthing it because the gun isn't ready.  Well,, the only one with the internal gun (the A) has already handled the gun tests including bagging drones.  The A also scored 100% in the off bore sighted Aim-9X shots at drones.  

The C is getting a chance to prove itself.  And, as usual, your nay sayers are eating crow.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Except you can't. Cause not stealthy .....not to mention only plane that still trails black smoke is B-52 because of old engines.


You poor naive idiot. We'll just keep serving you crow:

Vicious cycle: F-35A continues 5th-gen tradition of bullying legacy aircraft

Van Roo has been flying the F-16 since 2001 and as red air during Northern Lightning for 13 years. Red air is a formation of aircraft acting as the enemy for air-to-air tactics training.
“For us, as a capable fourth-generation fighter, we are used to being able to see and counter most adversaries that we have out there when we are playing red air,” Van Roo said. “Versus the F-35 it’s completely different. The most difficult thing is *we just can’t see them like they can see us*. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on trying to find someone in a huge space. We have been reliant on visual pickups of the aircraft only, which is extremely difficult to do, and at those ranges *we are already dead before we could shoot back*.”






Hmmm who to believe on F-35's stealth, an F-16 pilot flying against it or the armchair aviator Manonthestreet who has so wisely informed us it isn't stealthy and can't fight?

Manonthestreet


----------



## Manonthestreet

As F-35 comes on line Air superiority disappears......oooooops   But but it will shoot down everything before they even see it.....
The Looming Air Superiority Train Wreck

America is on track to lose air supremacy in contingencies involving near-peer air combat. Even as soon as next year, achieving air superiority in a war with China within a politically and operationally effective time frame might be doubtful. In a 2025 war, American aircraft losses are expected to be severe. In a 2030 war, the U.S. Air Force, after assessing currently funded improvement programs, now expects to no longer be able to win the air superiority battle.
This downward spiral matters. U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes observes: “Air superiority is the most important thing the Air Force provides for the joint force in the tactical environment.” If an air force can’t get you air superiority where and when it is needed, there may not a compelling argument for even having an air force. Gaining air superiority is an air force’s raison d’etre, and providing air superiority enables many other air, maritime, and land warfighting missions.


----------



## Manonthestreet

*Why the F-35 could 'never in a million years' out dogfight the RAF Typhoon or the Russian Su-35* 
Why the F-35 could 'never in a million years' out dogfight the RAF Typhoon or the Russian Su-35


----------



## Manonthestreet

AF has 100 do nothing "fighters" alrdy............waiting for the next fix


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Well hey the armchair aviator has returned, and he's got more opinion pieces to counter what actual pilots who fly the F-35 or against F-35 say. Strangely his own link says:

_*"While every credible report indicates that the F-35 will dominate in stealthiness"*_

How to reconcile this with Manonthestreet's repeated claims that the F-35 isn't stealthy? Is Manonthestreet full of shit now, or was he full of shit then? He can't even keep track of his own lies.


----------



## Manonthestreet

RubberGloveSeduction said:


> Well hey the armchair aviator has returned, and he's got more opinion pieces to counter what actual pilots who fly the F-35 or against F-35 say. Strangely his own link says:
> 
> _*"While every credible report indicates that the F-35 will dominate in stealthiness"*_
> 
> How to reconcile this with Manonthestreet's repeated claims that the F-35 isn't stealthy? Is Manonthestreet full of shit now, or was he full of shit then? He can't even keep track of his own lies.


Got nothing do ya but your own opinion vs experts....gee who should we believe????


----------



## Manonthestreet

As negotiations drag on over Lockheed Martin Corp.’s biggest U.S. contracts yet to build F-35 jets, one potential impediment hasn’t attracted public attention: a congressional requirement that the Air Force secretary certify the fighter will be in top shape within two years.

Lawmakers withheld $1 billion of about $5.3 billion the service requested for F-35s this year until the certification is made. The Air Force is the biggest buyer among the military services of the 2,443 aircraft planned for the U.S.
Even if the specified capabilities are delivered for the Air Force version in fiscal 2018, the three models of the F-35 won’t be declared to have full combat capability until they undergo vigorous operational exercises. Those won’t begin until August 2018 at the earliest and then will last as long as a year. That would be a year later than planned.  Lockheed’s F-35 Deals Barred Until Air Force Vouches for Fixes
DO nothing air force still all show, no punch til 2019.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> As negotiations drag on over Lockheed Martin Corp.’s biggest U.S. contracts yet to build F-35 jets, one potential impediment hasn’t attracted public attention: a congressional requirement that the Air Force secretary certify the fighter will be in top shape within two years.
> 
> Lawmakers withheld $1 billion of about $5.3 billion the service requested for F-35s this year until the certification is made. The Air Force is the biggest buyer among the military services of the 2,443 aircraft planned for the U.S.
> Even if the specified capabilities are delivered for the Air Force version in fiscal 2018, the three models of the F-35 won’t be declared to have full combat capability until they undergo vigorous operational exercises. Those won’t begin until August 2018 at the earliest and then will last as long as a year. That would be a year later than planned.  Lockheed’s F-35 Deals Barred Until Air Force Vouches for Fixes
> DO nothing air force still all show, no punch til 2019.....



The F-35A and B are already in service.  They are both certified.  In fact, if the Marines have their way, the F-35B will be in the Middle East flying off of small assault carriers later on this year.  They are already flying out of Japan.

The F-35A is ready to join the F-22 in the ME anytime.  But the last thing we need to do is to get it into full combat too soon.  Right now, the F-22 and the Ge4n 4 birds are doing fine.  But let the Russian Ground Stations get too plentiful and have them more agressive than they already are, then the F-35A will be needed fast.  We can afford to wait for a few months.


----------



## RubberGloveSeduction

Manonthestreet said:


> Got nothing do ya but your own opinion vs experts....gee who should we believe????


That is an interesting way to frame out. All those pilots who actual fly the F-35, not just from US but also Norway and Britain = my opinion

The blogs you like to follow by civilians who have never flown the plane = the experts

A pilot quoted as saying by the time they saw the F-35 they were already dead = my opinion, surely we should believe Manonthestreet's claim it isn't stealthy. All those pilots saying they'd prefer to be in an F-35 in air to air combat is my opinion, since Manonthestreet has read in some blog it can't fight.

It'll be fun continuing to watch you eat more and more crow, and hilarious to watch you try to stick to your guns on this. The idiot who says F-35 isn't stealthy.


----------



## I amso IR

Read and weep all nay sayers. IT'S COMING! I would not think of saying "we told you so", those of us who "believe". All you "carrier busting missile types" next comes the integration with the Air Force which does have the range to protect the carrier. Opp's!!!! Zip, bam, thank you ma'am! Sneaky Pete 35 at work.



*Navy Conducts First Live Fire NIFC-CA Test with F-35*
Navy News Service

In-Depth Coverage
Story Number: NNS160913-15
Release Date: 9/13/2016 2:46:00 PM

From Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, New Mexico (NNS) -- The Navy hosted its first live fire demonstration to successfully test the integration of F-35 with existing Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture Sept. 12.

During the test, an unmodified U.S. Marine Corps F-35B from the Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron (VMX) 1, based in Edwards Air Force Base, acted as an elevated sensor to detect an over-the-horizon threat. The aircraft then sent data through its Multi-Function Advanced Data Link to a ground station connected to USS Desert Ship (LLS-1), a land-based launch facility designed to simulate a ship at sea. Using the latest Aegis Weapon System Baseline 9.C1 and a Standard Missile 6, the system successfully detected and engaged the target.

While the goal of this test was to prove the compatibility of these systems within existing NIFC-CA architecture, this future capability will extend the Navy's engagement range to detect, analyze and intercept targets in operational settings. Using any variant of the F-35 as a broad area sensor, the aircraft can significantly increase the Aegis capability to detect, track and engage.

"This test was a great opportunity to assess the Navy's ability to take unrelated technologies and successfully close the fire control loop as well as merge anti-surface and anti-air weapons into a single kill web that shares common sensors, links and weapons," said Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS).

The test was a collaborative effort across the Navy and Marine Corps, White Sands Missile Range and industry partners leveraging a U.S. Marine Corps F-35B and the U.S. Navy's Aegis Weapon System to support the distributed lethality concept in the fleet.

"This test represents the start of our exploration into the interoperability of the F-35B with other naval assets," said Lt. Col. Richard Rusnok, VMX-1 F-35B det. officer in charge. "We believe the F-35B will drastically increase the situational awareness and lethality of the naval forces with which it will deploy in the very near future," he added.

Aegis Baseline 9 delivers a fully open architecture system on U.S. destroyers and is the basis for current and future Aegis Integrated Air and Missile Defense. Baseline 9 is being fielded on in-service destroyers, new construction destroyers and Aegis Ashore. The Aegis Common Source Library enabled derivatives are on the Coast Guard cutters, Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships and will be included on the upcoming frigate ships.

The F-35 Lightning II is a next-generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, advanced mission systems, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and cutting-edge sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace various aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, and 11 international countries.

PEO IWS is an affiliated Program Executive Office of the Naval Sea Systems Command. IWS is responsible for spearheading surface ship and submarine combat technologies and systems, and for implementing Navy enterprise solutions across ship platforms.





*NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
Enter Your Email Address*


----------



## HenryBHough

Overstuffed turkey - so overstuffed the stuffing's falling out?

Air Force grounds several of its new F-35s

*"WASHINGTON—Less than two months after declaring that the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was ready for combat, the Air Force on Friday announced that it was temporarily grounding 15 of the jets after it discovered that insulation was "peeling and crumbling" inside the fuel tanks."

"The setback is the latest problem for the $400 billion system, the most expensive in the history of the Pentagon. It comes as the program, which for years faced billions of dollars in cost overruns and significant schedule delays, had begun to make strides. Last year, the Marine Corps had declared its variant ready for combat. And in July, the Air Force gave a similar blessing to its variant."*

Yes, boys and girls, OUR tax dollars at work!


----------



## I amso IR

Good to see you back HBH. Got a source for that article?


----------



## HenryBHough

I amso IR said:


> Good to see you back HBH. Got a source for that article?



It's in the link, in red.  I just clicked on it to be sure it's working and it seems OK.

In any case, it was published today in The Fairbanks (AK) News-Miner, referring to the F35's that are supposed to be operational from Eilson AFB.  Apparently they reprinted it from a Washington newspaper but I haven't looked for the original.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Overstuffed turkey - so overstuffed the stuffing's falling out?
> 
> Air Force grounds several of its new F-35s
> 
> *"WASHINGTON—Less than two months after declaring that the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was ready for combat, the Air Force on Friday announced that it was temporarily grounding 15 of the jets after it discovered that insulation was "peeling and crumbling" inside the fuel tanks."
> 
> "The setback is the latest problem for the $400 billion system, the most expensive in the history of the Pentagon. It comes as the program, which for years faced billions of dollars in cost overruns and significant schedule delays, had begun to make strides. Last year, the Marine Corps had declared its variant ready for combat. And in July, the Air Force gave a similar blessing to its variant."*
> 
> Yes, boys and girls, OUR tax dollars at work!



When the brand new F-15As dropped into Bitburg in force, for the next year, they were up and down due to TCTOs.  Had the Internet been around I am quite sure that some moron would be hammering and trolling just like you.


----------



## HenryBHough

Having no legitimate defense of Obama's overstuffed turkey you turn to personal attack and insult?  I mean, faith in one's religion is one thing but defending the undefendable?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Having no legitimate defense of Obama's overstuffed turkey you turn to personal attack and insult?  I mean, faith in one's religion is one thing but defending the undefendable?



Actually, I am capable of doing both.  You seem to try and still play the old "I Hate Obama,,,,,,spit on floor......."


----------



## HenryBHough

Really, little fella, we didn't ask for nor do we need further proof.

I will concede that the F35 should strike fear in the hearts of America's enemies.  Fear that they might be injured or, perhaps, killed, by parts falling off.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Really, little fella, we didn't ask for nor do we need further proof.
> 
> I will concede that the F35 should strike fear in the hearts of America's enemies.  Fear that they might be injured or, perhaps, killed, by parts falling off.



Little Fella?  Thanks for noticing my 270lb svwelt figure.  

It's trains that are dangerous.  Planes keep falling on them.


----------



## HenryBHough

I was so wrong to confront faith with mere facts.


----------



## I amso IR

HenryBHough said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you back HBH. Got a source for that article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the link, in red.  I just clicked on it to be sure it's working and it seems OK.
> 
> In any case, it was published today in The Fairbanks (AK) News-Miner, referring to the F35's that are supposed to be operational from Eilson AFB.  Apparently they reprinted it from a Washington newspaper but I haven't looked for the original.
Click to expand...


Found it. In my browser it is blue and the first or title line. Thanks


----------



## I amso IR

I am sticking with the future with regards to the 35. Expensive, absolutely! But so would the two or three aircraft needed to replace it, be. And since the "Nerds" seem to have tamed the electronics and programs, the major problems are going bye-bye. She, He or It will be fine and will have a long, useful life as a pilot transporter. Hell the pilot might even be allowed to fly it once in a while as the 35 is far more aware of it's surroundings than the 22 can ever hope to be and the 22 is a fine machine. It and the remaining 4 Gen rely on the 35 for heads up, as well, as the 4 Gen are blind by todays standards. What is really cool is the vast amounts of money it is costing the Chinese and Russians to find the 35's equal. And that is busting their chops big time. Not to mention man made islands to be used as missile pads, which are not movable, simply destroyable. Kinda like the French Maggot Line. The Germans proved the Maggot theory. And there is no telling what the 35's abilities will be in another 10 years. Lasers will be one of the things incorporated, that will be certain. Since lasers can zap an ICBM, in the upper atmosphere or space, low flying aircraft will be a piece of cake, assuming it is reduced to a usable size and weight. And since lasers travel at the speed of light or there abouts, "Katy bar the door". The Navy's rail gun, despite it's short comings, it also a game changer for fleet defense and will simply enhance th abilities of the 35. Aren't communications a wonderful thing? Imagine a 35 talking with a rail gun and directing it's fire. I wonder how many rail guns could be put on a CV? Now that would be "reaching out and touching someone".


----------



## Manonthestreet

The Hawg isn't going anywhere.

"They have re-geared up, we've turned on the depot line, we're building it back up in capacity and supply chain," AFMC chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski recently told _Aviation Week_. "Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely."  U.S. Air Force Fires Up the A-10 Depot Line to Keep Warthogs Flying 'Indefinitely'

Theres couple of hundred F-35s we dont need anymore......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The Hawg isn't going anywhere.
> 
> "They have re-geared up, we've turned on the depot line, we're building it back up in capacity and supply chain," AFMC chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski recently told _Aviation Week_. "Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely."  U.S. Air Force Fires Up the A-10 Depot Line to Keep Warthogs Flying 'Indefinitely'
> 
> Theres couple of hundred F-35s we dont need anymore......



You dance with the gal that brung you.  As long as the A-10 in in the inventory it has to be maintained.  One thing has nothing to do with the other.

They are still finding things that the F-35 can do and it gets more visitile every day.  They are also finding that the AC-130J can do a reasonable job in CAS as well.  They've used the F-15E when the conditions were so crappy that the A-10 would have flown into the side of a dune.  The B-1 and B-52 is capable of covering CAS.

What the A-10 does is be visible.  And with ISIS leaving at high speeds, visible is good.  The visiblility is what works, and the 30mm is pretty well worthless on soft targets.  The fact that you get to see the A-10 kill you makes the biggest statement the A-10 can make.  But the idea is for you to die and any number of AC can get that job done.


----------



## Manonthestreet

UMMMM ...ummmmmm nice try.......you just contradicted bunch of your own blather.............F-35 cant carry enough punch per sortie to rely on ........and F-35 keeps breaking down ..at this rate someone cold do cleansheet fighter right and have it up and runnning before F-35 gets the chance to fail bigtime


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Hawg isn't going anywhere.
> 
> "They have re-geared up, we've turned on the depot line, we're building it back up in capacity and supply chain," AFMC chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski recently told _Aviation Week_. "Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely."  U.S. Air Force Fires Up the A-10 Depot Line to Keep Warthogs Flying 'Indefinitely'
> 
> Theres couple of hundred F-35s we dont need anymore......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dance with the gal that brung you.  As long as the A-10 in in the inventory it has to be maintained.  One thing has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> They are still finding things that the F-35 can do and it gets more visitile every day.  They are also finding that the AC-130J can do a reasonable job in CAS as well.  They've used the F-15E when the conditions were so crappy that the A-10 would have flown into the side of a dune.  The B-1 and B-52 is capable of covering CAS.
> 
> What the A-10 does is be visible.  And with ISIS leaving at high speeds, visible is good.  The visiblility is what works, and the 30mm is pretty well worthless on soft targets.  The fact that you get to see the A-10 kill you makes the biggest statement the A-10 can make.  But the idea is for you to die and any number of AC can get that job done.
Click to expand...






Are you high?  The 30mm worthless on soft targets?  My buddy who's an FO in the 82nd would beg to differ with you.  The AC-130 has been doing CAS for a looooong time.  Wasting a B-1 on CAS is moronic.  Like most bullshit the Air Force has been doing.  Let me seee...What's better at CAS????  An aircraft purpose built for the mission, or a huge fucking strategic bomber?   Hmmmm????


----------



## alpine

New fully autonomous ai fighter/bomber jets in testing.

You wont even know what hit you, when one of these suckers are after you...


----------



## williepete

Daryl Hunt said:


> the 30mm is pretty well worthless on soft targets.



WTFO?

You should see what a 100 round burst of PGU-13/B HEI will do to soft targets. It's a real crowd pleaser.


----------



## westwall

"Crowd pleaser"  Depends on which crowd me thinks.....


----------



## williepete

westwall said:


> "Crowd pleaser"  Depends on which crowd me thinks.....



It was a squadron saying. Like "party mix" when describing a mixed drum of AP, TP and HEI.
Another crowd pleaser.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Is it accurate?  No.  Is it safe to use in a environment that has manpads (you have to go straight and level to use it) No.  Is it more deadly on soft targets than 20mm or 50 cal?  No.  Does a missile do a better job and is safer?  Yes.  Before 

Before the wide dispersion of Manpads, the A-10 was very good at CAS.  Not anymore.  It's no better or worse than a host of other AC firing Hellfires and Mavericks.  Shoot, even the new AC-130J fires Hellcats.  And so does every fighter in the US Inventory.  The days of saying the A-10 is the best at anything is long gone.  It hasn't been the best at anything since the first Gulf War.  You will 

You should notice that the Marines aren't clammering for any A-10s.  They would rather have more AH-1Zs and OV-10s.  One would think the ARmy would better utilize their AH-64s for CAS but they are too busy looking for headlines doing things that other birds can do better.  As far as I am concerned, the AH-64 is the ultimate CAS bird.  Or it could be if it were to be used for it.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Is it accurate?  No.  Is it safe to use in a environment that has manpads (you have to go straight and level to use it) No.  Is it more deadly on soft targets than 20mm or 50 cal?  No.  Does a missile do a better job and is safer?  Yes.  Before
> 
> Before the wide dispersion of Manpads, the A-10 was very good at CAS.  Not anymore.  It's no better or worse than a host of other AC firing Hellfires and Mavericks.  Shoot, even the new AC-130J fires Hellcats.  And so does every fighter in the US Inventory.  The days of saying the A-10 is the best at anything is long gone.  It hasn't been the best at anything since the first Gulf War.  You will
> 
> You should notice that the Marines aren't clammering for any A-10s.  They would rather have more AH-1Zs and OV-10s.  One would think the ARmy would better utilize their AH-64s for CAS but they are too busy looking for headlines doing things that other birds can do better.  As far as I am concerned, the AH-64 is the ultimate CAS bird.  Or it could be if it were to be used for it.





Soooooo, you're trying to tell us that 30mm is less effective than .50 cal machinegun.  Sure you want to assert that?

BTW the explosion in the video below is from dynamite.  Not from the bullets.  The first 30 seconds are good.  The rest of it is crap.





And then you have this.  You wouldn't even see the .50 cal impacts from this distance.  Nor would the bad guys even care.



And that's a good question about the USMC not using the A-10.  That question has been asked for decades now.  Here are six Marines that are thankful the A-10 was around to save their ass.

*A-10 pilots honored for mission that saved Marines*
a10-pilots-distinguished-flying-cross


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it accurate?  No.  Is it safe to use in a environment that has manpads (you have to go straight and level to use it) No.  Is it more deadly on soft targets than 20mm or 50 cal?  No.  Does a missile do a better job and is safer?  Yes.  Before
> 
> Before the wide dispersion of Manpads, the A-10 was very good at CAS.  Not anymore.  It's no better or worse than a host of other AC firing Hellfires and Mavericks.  Shoot, even the new AC-130J fires Hellcats.  And so does every fighter in the US Inventory.  The days of saying the A-10 is the best at anything is long gone.  It hasn't been the best at anything since the first Gulf War.  You will
> 
> You should notice that the Marines aren't clammering for any A-10s.  They would rather have more AH-1Zs and OV-10s.  One would think the ARmy would better utilize their AH-64s for CAS but they are too busy looking for headlines doing things that other birds can do better.  As far as I am concerned, the AH-64 is the ultimate CAS bird.  Or it could be if it were to be used for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, you're trying to tell us that 30mm is less effective than .50 cal machinegun.  Sure you want to assert that?
> 
> BTW the explosion in the video below is from dynamite.  Not from the bullets.  The first 30 seconds are good.  The rest of it is crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then you have this.  You wouldn't even see the .50 cal impacts from this distance.  Nor would the bad guys even care.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a good question about the USMC not using the A-10.  That question has been asked for decades now.  Here are six Marines that are thankful the A-10 was around to save their ass.
> 
> *A-10 pilots honored for mission that saved Marines*
> a10-pilots-distinguished-flying-cross
Click to expand...


If the 50 is using HE rounds that is exactly what it looks like.  No TNT needed.

Notice the calleteral damage of the 30 since it really can't be aimed that well.  You want to see damage, let an AC do the same attack.  He can hit each bad guy, leaving the buildings or take out everything in a 50 foot area.  

For once, a real footage of an A-10 attack was presented.  The last few were supposed to be of an A-10 but it was clearly and orbiting platform (AC-130 with it's 30s).   The A-10 isn't used that much for CAS since it's range is just too short.  Now, when was this footage shot?  Was it DS1 or 2? or more current.  The date it was posted was 2014.  The A-10 was NOT operating at this time.  It would have to be earlier than that taking it back to DS2 or earlier.


----------



## I amso IR

The only reason that I personally accept the recently released report that the A10 is once again being refitted and perhaps updated is that someone believes there is again the threat of conflict in Europe and a large armored plus artillery involvement by hostile forces involved with Russia. The A10 along with the AH64 had the primary job of defeating armor and artillery in that scenario of that theater. Ivan has always had huge quantities of both and they were and still are very deadly. Were that area of the world to go ballistic, once again, the A10 would without doubt, be nice to have. As well, the F35 would also be a huge asset with the advanced capabilities it has as well as the Gen 4 aircraft it will work with. With todays weapons which are available one can only the hope there will be an adequate supply of Class V supplies (Ammo) to keep all of the beasts supplied. Let's hope our bunkers are well stocked and the producers are able to produce. God only knows that we have used a huge amount of Class V ammunition on the mid east alone and that stuff and the folks who have to move and deliver it, does not grow on trees. I am no pilot but have provided ammunition for the better part of 20 years and it is not a piece of cake by any means.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> The only reason that I personally accept the recently released report that the A10 is once again being refitted and perhaps updated is that someone believes there is again the threat of conflict in Europe and a large armored plus artillery involvement by hostile forces involved with Russia. The A10 along with the AH64 had the primary job of defeating armor and artillery in that scenario of that theater. Ivan has always had huge quantities of both and they were and still are very deadly. Were that area of the world to go ballistic, once again, the A10 would without doubt, be nice to have. As well, the F35 would also be a huge asset with the advanced capabilities it has as well as the Gen 4 aircraft it will work with. With todays weapons which are available one can only the hope there will be an adequate supply of Class V supplies (Ammo) to keep all of the beasts supplied. Let's hope our bunkers are well stocked and the producers are able to produce. God only knows that we have used a huge amount of Class V ammunition on the mid east alone and that stuff and the folks who have to move and deliver it, does not grow on trees. I am no pilot but have provided ammunition for the better part of 20 years and it is not a piece of cake by any means.



I don't find fault in what your wrote.  The A-10 was designed to take out Amour.  CAS was just an afterthought.  The A-10 seems to me that it's to be used when you run out those million dollar weapons.  Chances are, the other guy is going to be a little hurting for their own million dollar weapons to stop it.  At this point, the Apache, AH-1Z, and a few others will be used.  The problem with the A-10, there is a good chance it's going to be a one way mission.  In the 70s, armor didn't shoot back that well.  Now, every tank out there has become an AA by itself.  You are right.  the need for it as an anti armor is great and that is exactly why the depot level maintenance is going to be done.  Otherwise, they were willing to let it die a slow and painful death.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it accurate?  No.  Is it safe to use in a environment that has manpads (you have to go straight and level to use it) No.  Is it more deadly on soft targets than 20mm or 50 cal?  No.  Does a missile do a better job and is safer?  Yes.  Before
> 
> Before the wide dispersion of Manpads, the A-10 was very good at CAS.  Not anymore.  It's no better or worse than a host of other AC firing Hellfires and Mavericks.  Shoot, even the new AC-130J fires Hellcats.  And so does every fighter in the US Inventory.  The days of saying the A-10 is the best at anything is long gone.  It hasn't been the best at anything since the first Gulf War.  You will
> 
> You should notice that the Marines aren't clammering for any A-10s.  They would rather have more AH-1Zs and OV-10s.  One would think the ARmy would better utilize their AH-64s for CAS but they are too busy looking for headlines doing things that other birds can do better.  As far as I am concerned, the AH-64 is the ultimate CAS bird.  Or it could be if it were to be used for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, you're trying to tell us that 30mm is less effective than .50 cal machinegun.  Sure you want to assert that?
> 
> BTW the explosion in the video below is from dynamite.  Not from the bullets.  The first 30 seconds are good.  The rest of it is crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then you have this.  You wouldn't even see the .50 cal impacts from this distance.  Nor would the bad guys even care.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a good question about the USMC not using the A-10.  That question has been asked for decades now.  Here are six Marines that are thankful the A-10 was around to save their ass.
> 
> *A-10 pilots honored for mission that saved Marines*
> a10-pilots-distinguished-flying-cross
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the 50 is using HE rounds that is exactly what it looks like.  No TNT needed.
> 
> Notice the calleteral damage of the 30 since it really can't be aimed that well.  You want to see damage, let an AC do the same attack.  He can hit each bad guy, leaving the buildings or take out everything in a 50 foot area.
> 
> For once, a real footage of an A-10 attack was presented.  The last few were supposed to be of an A-10 but it was clearly and orbiting platform (AC-130 with it's 30s).   The A-10 isn't used that much for CAS since it's range is just too short.  Now, when was this footage shot?  Was it DS1 or 2? or more current.  The date it was posted was 2014.  The A-10 was NOT operating at this time.  It would have to be earlier than that taking it back to DS2 or earlier.
Click to expand...






Bullshit.  A friend of mine owns a shitload of Raufos ammo at 46 dollars a round it's veeeeeery pricey.  And it does nowhere near that amount of damage.  You're full of shit.  Accuracy of the A-10 depends on the pilot.  Just like it does for the Spectre.  A good pilot on a Spectre can place a 105mm through a open hatch.  Same goes for the GAU-8.  A good pilot can place all of them within the confines of a single tank.  I was at Edwards AFB when they were first introducing the A-10 and they fired live at a tank out on the impact range during an airshow (they could do that back then) and the burst removed the rear half of the target M-48.  As in totally gone.  All 80 rounds impacted on the rear deck and obliterated it.  The front half was still there.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it accurate?  No.  Is it safe to use in a environment that has manpads (you have to go straight and level to use it) No.  Is it more deadly on soft targets than 20mm or 50 cal?  No.  Does a missile do a better job and is safer?  Yes.  Before
> 
> Before the wide dispersion of Manpads, the A-10 was very good at CAS.  Not anymore.  It's no better or worse than a host of other AC firing Hellfires and Mavericks.  Shoot, even the new AC-130J fires Hellcats.  And so does every fighter in the US Inventory.  The days of saying the A-10 is the best at anything is long gone.  It hasn't been the best at anything since the first Gulf War.  You will
> 
> You should notice that the Marines aren't clammering for any A-10s.  They would rather have more AH-1Zs and OV-10s.  One would think the ARmy would better utilize their AH-64s for CAS but they are too busy looking for headlines doing things that other birds can do better.  As far as I am concerned, the AH-64 is the ultimate CAS bird.  Or it could be if it were to be used for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, you're trying to tell us that 30mm is less effective than .50 cal machinegun.  Sure you want to assert that?
> 
> BTW the explosion in the video below is from dynamite.  Not from the bullets.  The first 30 seconds are good.  The rest of it is crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then you have this.  You wouldn't even see the .50 cal impacts from this distance.  Nor would the bad guys even care.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a good question about the USMC not using the A-10.  That question has been asked for decades now.  Here are six Marines that are thankful the A-10 was around to save their ass.
> 
> *A-10 pilots honored for mission that saved Marines*
> a10-pilots-distinguished-flying-cross
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the 50 is using HE rounds that is exactly what it looks like.  No TNT needed.
> 
> Notice the calleteral damage of the 30 since it really can't be aimed that well.  You want to see damage, let an AC do the same attack.  He can hit each bad guy, leaving the buildings or take out everything in a 50 foot area.
> 
> For once, a real footage of an A-10 attack was presented.  The last few were supposed to be of an A-10 but it was clearly and orbiting platform (AC-130 with it's 30s).   The A-10 isn't used that much for CAS since it's range is just too short.  Now, when was this footage shot?  Was it DS1 or 2? or more current.  The date it was posted was 2014.  The A-10 was NOT operating at this time.  It would have to be earlier than that taking it back to DS2 or earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  A friend of mine owns a shitload of Raufos ammo at 46 dollars a round it's veeeeeery pricey.  And it does nowhere near that amount of damage.  You're full of shit.  Accuracy of the A-10 depends on the pilot.  Just like it does for the Spectre.  A good pilot on a Spectre can place a 105mm through a open hatch.  Same goes for the GAU-8.  A good pilot can place all of them within the confines of a single tank.  I was at Edwards AFB when they were first introducing the A-10 and they fired live at a tank out on the impact range during an airshow (they could do that back then) and the burst removed the rear half of the target M-48.  As in totally gone.  All 80 rounds impacted on the rear deck and obliterated it.  The front half was still there.
Click to expand...


I know a guy, a buddy to a buddy of mine, I once heard, it's true if it's on the internet.  Pick one.  I used the 50 and handled the 20 all day long.  I also handled the 105.  Guess which one would my choice?  The 30 cals (notice plural) from an AC-130.  If an A-10 is safe to operate in an area, then the AC is super safe and is more accurate and has a lot more firepower, endurance, range and more.  It hasn't been until the last 10 years or so that they have allowed the AC to do close support.  When I was with them, they were afraid that a degree or two off and it would wipe out the other side.  The AC aquisition and aiming has come a hell of a long way and it can even be raining cats and dogs and it can still hit your breast pocket.  And the AC can't be reached by manpads.  Like I said, the A10 is better at anti armor but the bad guys are carrying some pretty nasty stuff these days to knock it out of the sky or damage it enough to send it home.  The AF was slowly letting it die of old age but with the Russians pressing so hard with it's Armor then it's time to get it ready to do it's real job.  There are only 287 of them left.  Next year, there would have been around 250 left.  With the Depot Level Maintenance, they can keep it at around 280 for a few years.  But it's definately NOT CAS being the driving force.  It's the Russians playing games right on Europes front porch.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it accurate?  No.  Is it safe to use in a environment that has manpads (you have to go straight and level to use it) No.  Is it more deadly on soft targets than 20mm or 50 cal?  No.  Does a missile do a better job and is safer?  Yes.  Before
> 
> Before the wide dispersion of Manpads, the A-10 was very good at CAS.  Not anymore.  It's no better or worse than a host of other AC firing Hellfires and Mavericks.  Shoot, even the new AC-130J fires Hellcats.  And so does every fighter in the US Inventory.  The days of saying the A-10 is the best at anything is long gone.  It hasn't been the best at anything since the first Gulf War.  You will
> 
> You should notice that the Marines aren't clammering for any A-10s.  They would rather have more AH-1Zs and OV-10s.  One would think the ARmy would better utilize their AH-64s for CAS but they are too busy looking for headlines doing things that other birds can do better.  As far as I am concerned, the AH-64 is the ultimate CAS bird.  Or it could be if it were to be used for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, you're trying to tell us that 30mm is less effective than .50 cal machinegun.  Sure you want to assert that?
> 
> BTW the explosion in the video below is from dynamite.  Not from the bullets.  The first 30 seconds are good.  The rest of it is crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then you have this.  You wouldn't even see the .50 cal impacts from this distance.  Nor would the bad guys even care.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a good question about the USMC not using the A-10.  That question has been asked for decades now.  Here are six Marines that are thankful the A-10 was around to save their ass.
> 
> *A-10 pilots honored for mission that saved Marines*
> a10-pilots-distinguished-flying-cross
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the 50 is using HE rounds that is exactly what it looks like.  No TNT needed.
> 
> Notice the calleteral damage of the 30 since it really can't be aimed that well.  You want to see damage, let an AC do the same attack.  He can hit each bad guy, leaving the buildings or take out everything in a 50 foot area.
> 
> For once, a real footage of an A-10 attack was presented.  The last few were supposed to be of an A-10 but it was clearly and orbiting platform (AC-130 with it's 30s).   The A-10 isn't used that much for CAS since it's range is just too short.  Now, when was this footage shot?  Was it DS1 or 2? or more current.  The date it was posted was 2014.  The A-10 was NOT operating at this time.  It would have to be earlier than that taking it back to DS2 or earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  A friend of mine owns a shitload of Raufos ammo at 46 dollars a round it's veeeeeery pricey.  And it does nowhere near that amount of damage.  You're full of shit.  Accuracy of the A-10 depends on the pilot.  Just like it does for the Spectre.  A good pilot on a Spectre can place a 105mm through a open hatch.  Same goes for the GAU-8.  A good pilot can place all of them within the confines of a single tank.  I was at Edwards AFB when they were first introducing the A-10 and they fired live at a tank out on the impact range during an airshow (they could do that back then) and the burst removed the rear half of the target M-48.  As in totally gone.  All 80 rounds impacted on the rear deck and obliterated it.  The front half was still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a guy, a buddy to a buddy of mine, I once heard, it's true if it's on the internet.  Pick one.  I used the 50 and handled the 20 all day long.  I also handled the 105.  Guess which one would my choice?  The 30 cals (notice plural) from an AC-130.  If an A-10 is safe to operate in an area, then the AC is super safe and is more accurate and has a lot more firepower, endurance, range and more.  It hasn't been until the last 10 years or so that they have allowed the AC to do close support.  When I was with them, they were afraid that a degree or two off and it would wipe out the other side.  The AC aquisition and aiming has come a hell of a long way and it can even be raining cats and dogs and it can still hit your breast pocket.  And the AC can't be reached by manpads.  Like I said, the A10 is better at anti armor but the bad guys are carrying some pretty nasty stuff these days to knock it out of the sky or damage it enough to send it home.  The AF was slowly letting it die of old age but with the Russians pressing so hard with it's Armor then it's time to get it ready to do it's real job.  There are only 287 of them left.  Next year, there would have been around 250 left.  With the Depot Level Maintenance, they can keep it at around 280 for a few years.  But it's definately NOT CAS being the driving force.  It's the Russians playing games right on Europes front porch.
Click to expand...






I OWN a .50 silly boy.   I have fired some of my friends Raufos ammo.  It has 1/2 gram of RDX High Explosive.  It's fun, but not all that impressive against anything harder than a car body.  The 30mm HEI, on the other hand, contains 58 *GRAMS* of RDX. 

You were spewing?


----------



## I amso IR

Two ounces of RDX, (58 grams) will certainly get the attention of an infantry soldier. Especially when delivered among seven other rounds of the same type and in an area of one hundred square feet. A pound of RDX is a load and super quick when it detonates, about 8760 meters per second, (M/S). Not bad for one of the older explosives. Of course the A10 feels the same about RDX. So take your pick as to where you are when exposed to two ounces of RDX, in the air or on the ground. Either way, chances are you will not care for the results, rendering the point mute. And honestly, what does this conversation have to do with the F35? Except that the 500 lb GP bomb, loaded with RDX will do a hell of a lot more damage over a much larger area and that is what the F35 will bring into play. Not to mention the cannister bombs which cause even more confusion and pain. Enter the B1B or B2. The A10 is just fine when dealing with armor but that is about it. The AH64 pops up, aquires the target, fires and disappears and lives to fight again. I am still in your camp on this one Daryl.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Is it accurate?  No.  Is it safe to use in a environment that has manpads (you have to go straight and level to use it) No.  Is it more deadly on soft targets than 20mm or 50 cal?  No.  Does a missile do a better job and is safer?  Yes.  Before
> 
> Before the wide dispersion of Manpads, the A-10 was very good at CAS.  Not anymore.  It's no better or worse than a host of other AC firing Hellfires and Mavericks.  Shoot, even the new AC-130J fires Hellcats.  And so does every fighter in the US Inventory.  The days of saying the A-10 is the best at anything is long gone.  It hasn't been the best at anything since the first Gulf War.  You will
> 
> You should notice that the Marines aren't clammering for any A-10s.  They would rather have more AH-1Zs and OV-10s.  One would think the ARmy would better utilize their AH-64s for CAS but they are too busy looking for headlines doing things that other birds can do better.  As far as I am concerned, the AH-64 is the ultimate CAS bird.  Or it could be if it were to be used for it.


No, no, no. The A-10 is a CAS plane so you have to ask the ground troops for approval. The A-10 did well in Iraq 2003 and the soldiers loved this plane.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Two ounces of RDX, (58 grams) will certainly get the attention of an infantry soldier. Especially when delivered among seven other rounds of the same type and in an area of one hundred square feet. A pound of RDX is a load and super quick when it detonates, about 8760 meters per second, (M/S). Not bad for one of the older explosives. Of course the A10 feels the same about RDX. So take your pick as to where you are when exposed to two ounces of RDX, in the air or on the ground. Either way, chances are you will not care for the results, rendering the point mute. And honestly, what does this conversation have to do with the F35? Except that the 500 lb GP bomb, loaded with RDX will do a hell of a lot more damage over a much larger area and that is what the F35 will bring into play. Not to mention the cannister bombs which cause even more confusion and pain. Enter the B1B or B2. The A10 is just fine when dealing with armor but that is about it. The AH64 pops up, aquires the target, fires and disappears and lives to fight again. I am still in your camp on this one Daryl.



Thanks, IR.  I feel like a Trump Supporter at a Soros party on this one.  Most of these folks have never seen real war and real  damage close up.  Or watched a buddy being loaded in a baggie onto a transport.  It doesn't matter much to the individual if they are killed by a 50 cal, 20mm, 30mm, 105mm or a bomb or rocket.  If it's placed on target, it all kills.  Or have lost pilots and crew to some idiot with something small fired from the ground.  I want to protect the crews at all times.  Flying in the weeds is NOT the way to do that.


----------



## Manonthestreet

*F-35 crisis as Pentagon’s top weapon testing official warns plan to put unfinished $400bn fighters into service puts pilots at 'significant risk'*
Michael Gilmore warns putting unfinished fighters into combat puts pilots at 'risk' | Daily Mail Online
Game of pretend may be coming to an end when Trump gets in ....I hope


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> *F-35 crisis as Pentagon’s top weapon testing official warns plan to put unfinished $400bn fighters into service puts pilots at 'significant risk'*
> Michael Gilmore warns putting unfinished fighters into combat puts pilots at 'risk' | Daily Mail Online
> Game of pretend may be coming to an end when Trump gets in ....I hope



boyo don't you ever have an original thought?  YOu keep repeating the same crap over and over no matter what.  The F-35 will always be in some kind of testing.  As each test is completed successfully, it becomes more deadly and capable.  And the other birds benefit from it as well.  One of the biggest recipents of this technology has been the F-22.  Now, the weapons slung under the various fighters and bombers also have benefited.  As benefits keep coming and test keep either passing or failing on the test units, the F-35 just keeps getting better.  It won't stop the testing until it's replaced sometime in 2050.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Not the same crap dumbass ...new article.......facts are overwhelming......hope Trump cancels this pos


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Not the same crap dumbass ...new article.......facts are overwhelming......hope Trump cancels this pos



New article quoted the same tired sources.  And only based on the first 4 test units that are still in testing.  Those same countries that were trying to cancel their orders are now standing in line to get as many as they can.  Guess you know more about it than Combat Pilots who may foolishly believe it's better than the fighters they are currently operating even with the F-35 faults.


----------



## I amso IR

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same crap dumbass ...new article.......facts are overwhelming......hope Trump cancels this pos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New article quoted the same tired sources.  And only based on the first 4 test units that are still in testing.  Those same countries that were trying to cancel their orders are now standing in line to get as many as they can.  Guess you know more about it than Combat Pilots who may foolishly believe it's better than the fighters they are currently operating even with the F-35 faults.
Click to expand...


Daryl, I have not been keeping up and am concentrating on other things. Has anything been reported on a stronger or better power plant for the F 35. Just wondering. IamsoIR


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same crap dumbass ...new article.......facts are overwhelming......hope Trump cancels this pos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New article quoted the same tired sources.  And only based on the first 4 test units that are still in testing.  Those same countries that were trying to cancel their orders are now standing in line to get as many as they can.  Guess you know more about it than Combat Pilots who may foolishly believe it's better than the fighters they are currently operating even with the F-35 faults.
Click to expand...

Foolish is right....funny none of em can do anything yet......yeah got superfighter wrtten all over it


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same crap dumbass ...new article.......facts are overwhelming......hope Trump cancels this pos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New article quoted the same tired sources.  And only based on the first 4 test units that are still in testing.  Those same countries that were trying to cancel their orders are now standing in line to get as many as they can.  Guess you know more about it than Combat Pilots who may foolishly believe it's better than the fighters they are currently operating even with the F-35 faults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daryl, I have not been keeping up and am concentrating on other things. Has anything been reported on a stronger or better power plant for the F 35. Just wondering. IamsoIR
Click to expand...


I don' t know of anything specific on the engine.  I do know it could use it.  I do know they are taking each of them in and replacing internal fuel tanks with better sealed tanks.  They have been causing some onboard fires.  Not a big thing (g) with it's style of tanks and hasn't jepordized the birds yet but it certainly does shorten a flight.


----------



## Manonthestreet

*Liberals again considering sole source purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets to replace CF-18s*
Such a deal, if it proceeds, would give breathing room to the Liberals. During last year’s election campaign, Trudeau promised Canada would not purchase the controversial F-35, an aircraft he said was unnecessary for the country’s needs and too expensive. Trudeau promised his government would hold a competition.

By moving ahead with a sole source purchase of Boeing Super Hornets – and promising a competition in the late 2020s — the Liberals will still be able to claim they kept their election promise, industry sources say. Liberals again considering sole source purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets to replace CF-18s


----------



## westwall

Here is the newest report from the Operational Test and Evaluation division of the Sec Def.


http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Here is the newest report from the Operational Test and Evaluation division of the Sec Def.
> 
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf



Thank you for posting this.  It's very informative.  And it was true before it was written.  The birds tested had a 6 G limit on them through software and now has a 9 G rating.  Since then, the 3F and followons have come to play and the AF believes the F-35A is operational.  Things happened at a very fast rate from Early January to late August.   

The F-35 doesn't have to be a great fighter.  It can sit back and direct fire from other F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-15s and a whole lot of other platforms.  And still get in it's licks.

The Brand New SU-35 can lock onto a F-35A at about 35 miles.  It can see it at about 50 miles.  The F-35A picks the Su-35 at about 100 miles and can launch at 65 miles.  Plus, it can direct in fire from other platforms out to about 120 miles (the range of the AMRAM120D).  The SU-35 will be a bit busy to worry about getting in a dogfight when dodging missiles.  I suspect this is why the F-15s are getting the 12 missile rails.  

The F-35 will forever be under testing as it gains more capabilities.  It may stop when the new followons are brought into service with all the bells and whistles that the F-35 will finally possess.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the newest report from the Operational Test and Evaluation division of the Sec Def.
> 
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting this.  It's very informative.  And it was true before it was written.  The birds tested had a 6 G limit on them through software and now has a 9 G rating.  Since then, the 3F and followons have come to play and the AF believes the F-35A is operational.  Things happened at a very fast rate from Early January to late August.
> 
> The F-35 doesn't have to be a great fighter.  It can sit back and direct fire from other F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-15s and a whole lot of other platforms.  And still get in it's licks.
> 
> The Brand New SU-35 can lock onto a F-35A at about 35 miles.  It can see it at about 50 miles.  The F-35A picks the Su-35 at about 100 miles and can launch at 65 miles.  Plus, it can direct in fire from other platforms out to about 120 miles (the range of the AMRAM120D).  The SU-35 will be a bit busy to worry about getting in a dogfight when dodging missiles.  I suspect this is why the F-15s are getting the 12 missile rails.
> 
> The F-35 will forever be under testing as it gains more capabilities.  It may stop when the new followons are brought into service with all the bells and whistles that the F-35 will finally possess.
Click to expand...









 The Russians can build 3 or 4 SU-35's for the cost of a single F-35.  Hell the cost for the F-35 as it sits is 98 million without an engine.  Assume they each only have a 50% serviceability rate.  The Russians still have a viable air fleet.  The F-35s not so much.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the newest report from the Operational Test and Evaluation division of the Sec Def.
> 
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting this.  It's very informative.  And it was true before it was written.  The birds tested had a 6 G limit on them through software and now has a 9 G rating.  Since then, the 3F and followons have come to play and the AF believes the F-35A is operational.  Things happened at a very fast rate from Early January to late August.
> 
> The F-35 doesn't have to be a great fighter.  It can sit back and direct fire from other F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-15s and a whole lot of other platforms.  And still get in it's licks.
> 
> The Brand New SU-35 can lock onto a F-35A at about 35 miles.  It can see it at about 50 miles.  The F-35A picks the Su-35 at about 100 miles and can launch at 65 miles.  Plus, it can direct in fire from other platforms out to about 120 miles (the range of the AMRAM120D).  The SU-35 will be a bit busy to worry about getting in a dogfight when dodging missiles.  I suspect this is why the F-15s are getting the 12 missile rails.
> 
> The F-35 will forever be under testing as it gains more capabilities.  It may stop when the new followons are brought into service with all the bells and whistles that the F-35 will finally possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians can build 3 or 4 SU-35's for the cost of a single F-35.  Hell the cost for the F-35 as it sits is 98 million without an engine.  Assume they each only have a 50% serviceability rate.  The Russians still have a viable air fleet.  The F-35s not so much.
Click to expand...


The Russians can't afford to build even one.  Plus, the Russians have projected only 90 will be in service.  Right now, they only have a handful of them and can't afford to build any more of them at this time.  Even if the PKA-50 would be as great as they believe (it's not) they can't build them in quantity.  Paper Aiirplanes make poor servicable aircraft.

And the cost of a F-35A with engine and support parts is 95 mil each and going down.  Congress has just learned that buying them one at a time keeps the cost up.  The Senate is now wanting to expand the purchase to get it down to 85 mil WITH engine.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the newest report from the Operational Test and Evaluation division of the Sec Def.
> 
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting this.  It's very informative.  And it was true before it was written.  The birds tested had a 6 G limit on them through software and now has a 9 G rating.  Since then, the 3F and followons have come to play and the AF believes the F-35A is operational.  Things happened at a very fast rate from Early January to late August.
> 
> The F-35 doesn't have to be a great fighter.  It can sit back and direct fire from other F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-15s and a whole lot of other platforms.  And still get in it's licks.
> 
> The Brand New SU-35 can lock onto a F-35A at about 35 miles.  It can see it at about 50 miles.  The F-35A picks the Su-35 at about 100 miles and can launch at 65 miles.  Plus, it can direct in fire from other platforms out to about 120 miles (the range of the AMRAM120D).  The SU-35 will be a bit busy to worry about getting in a dogfight when dodging missiles.  I suspect this is why the F-15s are getting the 12 missile rails.
> 
> The F-35 will forever be under testing as it gains more capabilities.  It may stop when the new followons are brought into service with all the bells and whistles that the F-35 will finally possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians can build 3 or 4 SU-35's for the cost of a single F-35.  Hell the cost for the F-35 as it sits is 98 million without an engine.  Assume they each only have a 50% serviceability rate.  The Russians still have a viable air fleet.  The F-35s not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians can't afford to build even one.  Plus, the Russians have projected only 90 will be in service.  Right now, they only have a handful of them and can't afford to build any more of them at this time.  Even if the PKA-50 would be as great as they believe (it's not) they can't build them in quantity.  Paper Aiirplanes make poor servicable aircraft.
Click to expand...







That's true.  Here at the Reno Air Races there were two F-35's that flew in for a demonstration.  They both broke and were static display only for the duration.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the newest report from the Operational Test and Evaluation division of the Sec Def.
> 
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting this.  It's very informative.  And it was true before it was written.  The birds tested had a 6 G limit on them through software and now has a 9 G rating.  Since then, the 3F and followons have come to play and the AF believes the F-35A is operational.  Things happened at a very fast rate from Early January to late August.
> 
> The F-35 doesn't have to be a great fighter.  It can sit back and direct fire from other F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-15s and a whole lot of other platforms.  And still get in it's licks.
> 
> The Brand New SU-35 can lock onto a F-35A at about 35 miles.  It can see it at about 50 miles.  The F-35A picks the Su-35 at about 100 miles and can launch at 65 miles.  Plus, it can direct in fire from other platforms out to about 120 miles (the range of the AMRAM120D).  The SU-35 will be a bit busy to worry about getting in a dogfight when dodging missiles.  I suspect this is why the F-15s are getting the 12 missile rails.
> 
> The F-35 will forever be under testing as it gains more capabilities.  It may stop when the new followons are brought into service with all the bells and whistles that the F-35 will finally possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians can build 3 or 4 SU-35's for the cost of a single F-35.  Hell the cost for the F-35 as it sits is 98 million without an engine.  Assume they each only have a 50% serviceability rate.  The Russians still have a viable air fleet.  The F-35s not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians can't afford to build even one.  Plus, the Russians have projected only 90 will be in service.  Right now, they only have a handful of them and can't afford to build any more of them at this time.  Even if the PKA-50 would be as great as they believe (it's not) they can't build them in quantity.  Paper Aiirplanes make poor servicable aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true.  Here at the Reno Air Races there were two F-35's that flew in for a demonstration.  They both broke and were static display only for the duration.
Click to expand...


What model were they?


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the newest report from the Operational Test and Evaluation division of the Sec Def.
> 
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting this.  It's very informative.  And it was true before it was written.  The birds tested had a 6 G limit on them through software and now has a 9 G rating.  Since then, the 3F and followons have come to play and the AF believes the F-35A is operational.  Things happened at a very fast rate from Early January to late August.
> 
> The F-35 doesn't have to be a great fighter.  It can sit back and direct fire from other F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-15s and a whole lot of other platforms.  And still get in it's licks.
> 
> The Brand New SU-35 can lock onto a F-35A at about 35 miles.  It can see it at about 50 miles.  The F-35A picks the Su-35 at about 100 miles and can launch at 65 miles.  Plus, it can direct in fire from other platforms out to about 120 miles (the range of the AMRAM120D).  The SU-35 will be a bit busy to worry about getting in a dogfight when dodging missiles.  I suspect this is why the F-15s are getting the 12 missile rails.
> 
> The F-35 will forever be under testing as it gains more capabilities.  It may stop when the new followons are brought into service with all the bells and whistles that the F-35 will finally possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians can build 3 or 4 SU-35's for the cost of a single F-35.  Hell the cost for the F-35 as it sits is 98 million without an engine.  Assume they each only have a 50% serviceability rate.  The Russians still have a viable air fleet.  The F-35s not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians can't afford to build even one.  Plus, the Russians have projected only 90 will be in service.  Right now, they only have a handful of them and can't afford to build any more of them at this time.  Even if the PKA-50 would be as great as they believe (it's not) they can't build them in quantity.  Paper Aiirplanes make poor servicable aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true.  Here at the Reno Air Races there were two F-35's that flew in for a demonstration.  They both broke and were static display only for the duration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What model were they?
Click to expand...





A pair of F-35A's from Luke  I took pictures of them on the ramp.



*F-35*

For the first time ever, an F-35 fighter jet, piloted by Maj. William Andreotta, USAF, and assigned to Luke Air Force Base in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale will visit air shows across the country this year.

The jet will make its first appearance as part of the Air Force Heritage Flight program at Luke’s air show on April 2nd and 3rd and then travel to air shows nationwide, including Reno.

The heritage flight program, of which the F-35 is a part, teams up current Air Force fighters with planes from the World War II, Korean and Vietnam eras in a dynamic display of our nation’s airpower history.

Tickets are on sale for the 53rd Annual National Championship Air Races held September 14-18, 2016 at Reno Stead Airport. For more information, or to volunteer, visit http://airrace.org.


Reno Championship Air Races |   U.S. Navy Blue Angels to Headline 2016 RARA Performers List


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting this.  It's very informative.  And it was true before it was written.  The birds tested had a 6 G limit on them through software and now has a 9 G rating.  Since then, the 3F and followons have come to play and the AF believes the F-35A is operational.  Things happened at a very fast rate from Early January to late August.
> 
> The F-35 doesn't have to be a great fighter.  It can sit back and direct fire from other F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-15s and a whole lot of other platforms.  And still get in it's licks.
> 
> The Brand New SU-35 can lock onto a F-35A at about 35 miles.  It can see it at about 50 miles.  The F-35A picks the Su-35 at about 100 miles and can launch at 65 miles.  Plus, it can direct in fire from other platforms out to about 120 miles (the range of the AMRAM120D).  The SU-35 will be a bit busy to worry about getting in a dogfight when dodging missiles.  I suspect this is why the F-15s are getting the 12 missile rails.
> 
> The F-35 will forever be under testing as it gains more capabilities.  It may stop when the new followons are brought into service with all the bells and whistles that the F-35 will finally possess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians can build 3 or 4 SU-35's for the cost of a single F-35.  Hell the cost for the F-35 as it sits is 98 million without an engine.  Assume they each only have a 50% serviceability rate.  The Russians still have a viable air fleet.  The F-35s not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians can't afford to build even one.  Plus, the Russians have projected only 90 will be in service.  Right now, they only have a handful of them and can't afford to build any more of them at this time.  Even if the PKA-50 would be as great as they believe (it's not) they can't build them in quantity.  Paper Aiirplanes make poor servicable aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true.  Here at the Reno Air Races there were two F-35's that flew in for a demonstration.  They both broke and were static display only for the duration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What model were they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pair of F-35A's from Luke  I took pictures of them on the ramp.
> 
> 
> 
> *F-35*
> 
> For the first time ever, an F-35 fighter jet, piloted by Maj. William Andreotta, USAF, and assigned to Luke Air Force Base in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale will visit air shows across the country this year.
> 
> The jet will make its first appearance as part of the Air Force Heritage Flight program at Luke’s air show on April 2nd and 3rd and then travel to air shows nationwide, including Reno.
> 
> The heritage flight program, of which the F-35 is a part, teams up current Air Force fighters with planes from the World War II, Korean and Vietnam eras in a dynamic display of our nation’s airpower history.
> 
> Tickets are on sale for the 53rd Annual National Championship Air Races held September 14-18, 2016 at Reno Stead Airport. For more information, or to volunteer, visit http://airrace.org.
> 
> 
> Reno Championship Air Races |   U.S. Navy Blue Angels to Headline 2016 RARA Performers List
Click to expand...


For crying out loud.  They fly in, do the heritage flight, land then go on display.  That's the whole F-35 program.  What more do you want.  You want one of them to pull a cessna out of a hat or something cute like that?  They ain't broke, they are doing what has been contracted for.  Nothing more, nothing less.  As far as everyone else was concerned, the Reno Heritage Flight was a success.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians can build 3 or 4 SU-35's for the cost of a single F-35.  Hell the cost for the F-35 as it sits is 98 million without an engine.  Assume they each only have a 50% serviceability rate.  The Russians still have a viable air fleet.  The F-35s not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians can't afford to build even one.  Plus, the Russians have projected only 90 will be in service.  Right now, they only have a handful of them and can't afford to build any more of them at this time.  Even if the PKA-50 would be as great as they believe (it's not) they can't build them in quantity.  Paper Aiirplanes make poor servicable aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true.  Here at the Reno Air Races there were two F-35's that flew in for a demonstration.  They both broke and were static display only for the duration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What model were they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pair of F-35A's from Luke  I took pictures of them on the ramp.
> 
> 
> 
> *F-35*
> 
> For the first time ever, an F-35 fighter jet, piloted by Maj. William Andreotta, USAF, and assigned to Luke Air Force Base in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale will visit air shows across the country this year.
> 
> The jet will make its first appearance as part of the Air Force Heritage Flight program at Luke’s air show on April 2nd and 3rd and then travel to air shows nationwide, including Reno.
> 
> The heritage flight program, of which the F-35 is a part, teams up current Air Force fighters with planes from the World War II, Korean and Vietnam eras in a dynamic display of our nation’s airpower history.
> 
> Tickets are on sale for the 53rd Annual National Championship Air Races held September 14-18, 2016 at Reno Stead Airport. For more information, or to volunteer, visit http://airrace.org.
> 
> 
> Reno Championship Air Races |   U.S. Navy Blue Angels to Headline 2016 RARA Performers List
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For crying out loud.  They fly in, do the heritage flight, land then go on display.  That's the whole F-35 program.  What more do you want.  You want one of them to pull a cessna out of a hat or something cute like that?  They ain't broke, they are doing what has been contracted for.  Nothing more, nothing less.  As far as everyone else was concerned, the Reno Heritage Flight was a success.
Click to expand...







They weren't able to do the Heritage flight.  They ended up using and F/A 18 instead.  Like I said, both F-35's broke down.  My friend is the FBO at Stead and I have been working at the air races for over 40 years, usually on Rare Bear but Rod decided to not race her this year so I was just screwing around for the races this year.

I must say though, that having the Collings Foundations two F-4's show up was really nice.  They did a nice flyby.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I give up on you.  Glad you don't have any say in what happens.  You just ain't that important and neither am I.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> I give up on you.  Glad you don't have any say in what happens.  You just ain't that important and neither am I.








I have no idea what you are blabbering about.  The two F-35's flew in and immediately went Non-Op.  They weren't able to get them flyable again until Wednesday, almost a full week later.  That is called a fact.  If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.  That was one of the finest aircraft ever flown and it was a treat to see two of them in the air again.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give up on you.  Glad you don't have any say in what happens.  You just ain't that important and neither am I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are blabbering about.  The two F-35's flew in and immediately went Non-Op.  They weren't able to get them flyable again until Wednesday, almost a full week later.  That is called a fact.  If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.  That was one of the finest aircraft ever flown and it was a treat to see two of them in the air again.
Click to expand...


You are a real piece of work.  Your discussing tactics are, "Agree with me or I'll drop the hammer on you".  

I don't believe you about the F-35s at the Reno flight.  After a bit of research (remember that?) I learned that one of the Reno Races was supposed to have the F-18 on the Heritage Flight.  Sounds to me like you got the dates mixed up.  

As for the F-4, you have no idea what I think of the F-4 considering I owe my bacon many times over them playing chicken with 37mm AAs so they couldn't see us.  Imagine floating down to a AA with your landing lights on, full flaps and landing gear down.  This doesn't blind the AA, it just means the only thing it can see is the Phantom.  When we landed, we heard of a 4 coming in on one engine, no canopy, Nav already punched out, Pilots seat malfunction, pouring out JP-4.  The other F-4s were just trying to get him to the end of the runway and into the trap.  They took turns flying inverted under him trying to give him just that much time.  They called in a Tanker but the Tanker was 1 minute out, just as well been forever.  They got him within 2 miles of the end of the runway before he completely ran out of luck.  Now, you sanctimonious ass, what do you believe I think of the F-4s.

You can spank me now.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give up on you.  Glad you don't have any say in what happens.  You just ain't that important and neither am I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are blabbering about.  The two F-35's flew in and immediately went Non-Op.  They weren't able to get them flyable again until Wednesday, almost a full week later.  That is called a fact.  If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.  That was one of the finest aircraft ever flown and it was a treat to see two of them in the air again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a real piece of work.  Your discussing tactics are, "Agree with me or I'll drop the hammer on you".
> 
> I don't believe you about the F-35s at the Reno flight.  After a bit of research (remember that?) I learned that one of the Reno Races was supposed to have the F-18 on the Heritage Flight.  Sounds to me like you got the dates mixed up.
> 
> As for the F-4, you have no idea what I think of the F-4 considering I owe my bacon many times over them playing chicken with 37mm AAs so they couldn't see us.  Imagine floating down to a AA with your landing lights on, full flaps and landing gear down.  This doesn't blind the AA, it just means the only thing it can see is the Phantom.  When we landed, we heard of a 4 coming in on one engine, no canopy, Nav already punched out, Pilots seat malfunction, pouring out JP-4.  The other F-4s were just trying to get him to the end of the runway and into the trap.  They took turns flying inverted under him trying to give him just that much time.  They called in a Tanker but the Tanker was 1 minute out, just as well been forever.  They got him within 2 miles of the end of the runway before he completely ran out of luck.  Now, you sanctimonious ass, what do you believe I think of the F-4s.
> 
> You can spank me now.
Click to expand...







No, I did not get the dates mixed up numbskull.  The two F-35's arrived and promptly were set into the military aircraft display where they remained for the duration.   They did not fly again till the following Wednesday.  When Air Race is on, I am there for the duration, two weeks in all.  Every day.  Been doing that for over 40 years like I said.  Try finding ANY video of the F-35's flying at Reno.  There is none.  They didn't fly except for their break onto Final and then their touchdown.  That was it.  

As far as the F-4 go's the only sanctimonious asshole is you.  I merely related that it was awesome to see two of them in the air again.  They saved the asses of a LOT of people, so I am sure many feel about them as you do in that regard.  I am not here to "spank you".  I am here to relay info.  For the record, whenever the F-22's would come in for a demonstration they always sent three knowing that one of them would probably break on the way.  One almost always did.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Horse feathers.  Since you can't be responsible to not lie about what you already said, I don't believe you on your other information.

Does this ring a bell



> If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.



Please do not respond to my posts as I will automatically assume you are slanting things for your own sick reasons.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Horse feathers.  Since you can't be responsible to not lie about what you already said, I don't believe you on your other information.
> 
> Does this ring a bell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not respond to my posts as I will automatically assume you are slanting things for your own sick reasons.
Click to expand...







Sheesh.  You act like a damned 12 year old.  Yes, it rings a bell, I stated a FACT about both F-35's going Non Op, and made an observation about the F-4, you then posted this...

"I give up on you. Glad you don't have any say in what happens. You just ain't that important and neither am I."

I have no idea what drugs you are on but you need to get a grip.  Your response to my factual posts makes no sense.  Period.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse feathers.  Since you can't be responsible to not lie about what you already said, I don't believe you on your other information.
> 
> Does this ring a bell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not respond to my posts as I will automatically assume you are slanting things for your own sick reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  You act like a damned 12 year old.  Yes, it rings a bell, I stated a FACT about both F-35's going Non Op, and made an observation about the F-4, you then posted this...
> 
> "I give up on you. Glad you don't have any say in what happens. You just ain't that important and neither am I."
> 
> I have no idea what drugs you are on but you need to get a grip.  Your response to my factual posts makes no sense.  Period.
Click to expand...


Standard Grade School response on your part.  You really don't need the drugs I am on.  I stand by my response.  If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have posted it.

And you call yourself a Moderator.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse feathers.  Since you can't be responsible to not lie about what you already said, I don't believe you on your other information.
> 
> Does this ring a bell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not respond to my posts as I will automatically assume you are slanting things for your own sick reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  You act like a damned 12 year old.  Yes, it rings a bell, I stated a FACT about both F-35's going Non Op, and made an observation about the F-4, you then posted this...
> 
> "I give up on you. Glad you don't have any say in what happens. You just ain't that important and neither am I."
> 
> I have no idea what drugs you are on but you need to get a grip.  Your response to my factual posts makes no sense.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard Grade School response on your part.  You really don't need the drugs I am on.  I stand by my response.  If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have posted it.
> 
> And you call yourself a Moderator.
Click to expand...






Yes, you stand behind it.  Now.  Would you care to tell the class what you meant by it?  Did the F-35's both break?  Yes.  Did I make any other claim about them?  No.  Did I say it was cool seeing two Phantoms airborne again?  Yes.  Your response was "I give up on you".  I have no idea what you mean by that other than you are batshit crazy and will give an auto response that has no relationship to the world.  

Good day.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse feathers.  Since you can't be responsible to not lie about what you already said, I don't believe you on your other information.
> 
> Does this ring a bell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not respond to my posts as I will automatically assume you are slanting things for your own sick reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  You act like a damned 12 year old.  Yes, it rings a bell, I stated a FACT about both F-35's going Non Op, and made an observation about the F-4, you then posted this...
> 
> "I give up on you. Glad you don't have any say in what happens. You just ain't that important and neither am I."
> 
> I have no idea what drugs you are on but you need to get a grip.  Your response to my factual posts makes no sense.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard Grade School response on your part.  You really don't need the drugs I am on.  I stand by my response.  If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have posted it.
> 
> And you call yourself a Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you stand behind it.  Now.  Would you care to tell the class what you meant by it?  Did the F-35's both break?  Yes.  Did I make any other claim about them?  No.  Did I say it was cool seeing two Phantoms airborne again?  Yes.  Your response was "I give up on you".  I have no idea what you mean by that other than you are batshit crazy and will give an auto response that has no relationship to the world.
> 
> Good day.
Click to expand...


I doubt that both F-35As were grounded for a week.  I doubt your whole story.  And you used a backward insult on your F-4 statement.  Not the way that a moderator should act.  Maybe the trust placed in you is misplaced.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse feathers.  Since you can't be responsible to not lie about what you already said, I don't believe you on your other information.
> 
> Does this ring a bell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are offended by my F-4 Phantom observation then there truly is no hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not respond to my posts as I will automatically assume you are slanting things for your own sick reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  You act like a damned 12 year old.  Yes, it rings a bell, I stated a FACT about both F-35's going Non Op, and made an observation about the F-4, you then posted this...
> 
> "I give up on you. Glad you don't have any say in what happens. You just ain't that important and neither am I."
> 
> I have no idea what drugs you are on but you need to get a grip.  Your response to my factual posts makes no sense.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard Grade School response on your part.  You really don't need the drugs I am on.  I stand by my response.  If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have posted it.
> 
> And you call yourself a Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you stand behind it.  Now.  Would you care to tell the class what you meant by it?  Did the F-35's both break?  Yes.  Did I make any other claim about them?  No.  Did I say it was cool seeing two Phantoms airborne again?  Yes.  Your response was "I give up on you".  I have no idea what you mean by that other than you are batshit crazy and will give an auto response that has no relationship to the world.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that both F-35As were grounded for a week.  I doubt your whole story.  And you used a backward insult on your F-4 statement.  Not the way that a moderator should act.  Maybe the trust placed in you is misplaced.
Click to expand...







What the fuck is a "backward insult"?  You can doubt all you want, but that is a fact as far as the F-35's go.


----------



## HenryBHough

Impressive when flown, those overstuffed turkeys.

Perhaps most impressive in consideration of the old adage:  "Seldom seen is *wonderful*!"

I did like the F35 mockup that was on display at Farnborough - haven't gone to Reno in decades though when I was younger and more patient I did drive up for air races and a visit to Bill Lear's hangar where they were "winding" the fuselage for the plane he was working on when he died (had nothing to do with that or any airplane).  Lost track of whether that interesting co-axial concept ever flew.


----------



## westwall

HenryBHough said:


> Impressive when flown, those overstuffed turkeys.
> 
> Perhaps most impressive in consideration of the old adage:  "Seldom seen is *wonderful*!"
> 
> I did like the F35 mockup that was on display at Farnborough - haven't gone to Reno in decades though when I was younger and more patient I did drive up for air races and a visit to Bill Lear's hangar where they were "winding" the fuselage for the plane he was working on when he died (had nothing to do with that or any airplane).  Lost track of whether that interesting co-axial concept ever flew.







Lears old hangar is now the RARA and Sport Class pit area.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse feathers.  Since you can't be responsible to not lie about what you already said, I don't believe you on your other information.
> 
> Does this ring a bell
> 
> Please do not respond to my posts as I will automatically assume you are slanting things for your own sick reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  You act like a damned 12 year old.  Yes, it rings a bell, I stated a FACT about both F-35's going Non Op, and made an observation about the F-4, you then posted this...
> 
> "I give up on you. Glad you don't have any say in what happens. You just ain't that important and neither am I."
> 
> I have no idea what drugs you are on but you need to get a grip.  Your response to my factual posts makes no sense.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard Grade School response on your part.  You really don't need the drugs I am on.  I stand by my response.  If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have posted it.
> 
> And you call yourself a Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you stand behind it.  Now.  Would you care to tell the class what you meant by it?  Did the F-35's both break?  Yes.  Did I make any other claim about them?  No.  Did I say it was cool seeing two Phantoms airborne again?  Yes.  Your response was "I give up on you".  I have no idea what you mean by that other than you are batshit crazy and will give an auto response that has no relationship to the world.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that both F-35As were grounded for a week.  I doubt your whole story.  And you used a backward insult on your F-4 statement.  Not the way that a moderator should act.  Maybe the trust placed in you is misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck is a "backward insult"?  You can doubt all you want, but that is a fact as far as the F-35's go.
Click to expand...


No, it's a fact as far as you can see (if it actually happened at all).  The construction of the F-35 is such that it's a snap to fix.  Engine change in less than 30 minutes, almost all the components are behind access panels, etc..  Outside of the internal fuel tanks, there isn't even a series of things that can ground a F-35A for more than a few hours at best.  Of course, it they had chosen to replace the internal fuel tanks they would have been there for a few weeks.  Your story doesn't hold up, blinky.


----------



## HenryBHough

Sounds like that presto-chango engine might have been one of the best parts of the design.  Were these things old on the open market a neat promotion might be to include three spare engines with every purchase!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> Sounds like that presto-chango engine might have been one of the best parts of the design.  Were these things old on the open market a neat promotion might be to include three spare engines with every purchase!



There are some really well thought out maintenance things on the F-35A Easy access and more.  Look for it to be the new standard on any new Aircraft including the B-21.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  You act like a damned 12 year old.  Yes, it rings a bell, I stated a FACT about both F-35's going Non Op, and made an observation about the F-4, you then posted this...
> 
> "I give up on you. Glad you don't have any say in what happens. You just ain't that important and neither am I."
> 
> I have no idea what drugs you are on but you need to get a grip.  Your response to my factual posts makes no sense.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard Grade School response on your part.  You really don't need the drugs I am on.  I stand by my response.  If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have posted it.
> 
> And you call yourself a Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you stand behind it.  Now.  Would you care to tell the class what you meant by it?  Did the F-35's both break?  Yes.  Did I make any other claim about them?  No.  Did I say it was cool seeing two Phantoms airborne again?  Yes.  Your response was "I give up on you".  I have no idea what you mean by that other than you are batshit crazy and will give an auto response that has no relationship to the world.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that both F-35As were grounded for a week.  I doubt your whole story.  And you used a backward insult on your F-4 statement.  Not the way that a moderator should act.  Maybe the trust placed in you is misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck is a "backward insult"?  You can doubt all you want, but that is a fact as far as the F-35's go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a fact as far as you can see (if it actually happened at all).  The construction of the F-35 is such that it's a snap to fix.  Engine change in less than 30 minutes, almost all the components are behind access panels, etc..  Outside of the internal fuel tanks, there isn't even a series of things that can ground a F-35A for more than a few hours at best.  Of course, it they had chosen to replace the internal fuel tanks they would have been there for a few weeks.  Your story doesn't hold up, blinky.
Click to expand...







Yes.  Anything is a snap to fix when you have the parts to do so.  Lockheed promised there would be 1,013 of them in USAF inventory by now.  There are, in fact, only 179 of them.  Surprisingly enough, the supply chain for them isn't up to snuff.  Give them a couple of years and your statement about them being able to be rapidly brought back to operational status will probably be true.  

It is not true....now.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard Grade School response on your part.  You really don't need the drugs I am on.  I stand by my response.  If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have posted it.
> 
> And you call yourself a Moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The supply chain for the new squadrons are in place.  Just how long does it take to get anything from Luke AFB to LV.  once again, you are showing that you haven't a clue in operations.  Are you now going to claim you were a USAF Military Pilot in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you stand behind it.  Now.  Would you care to tell the class what you meant by it?  Did the F-35's both break?  Yes.  Did I make any other claim about them?  No.  Did I say it was cool seeing two Phantoms airborne again?  Yes.  Your response was "I give up on you".  I have no idea what you mean by that other than you are batshit crazy and will give an auto response that has no relationship to the world.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that both F-35As were grounded for a week.  I doubt your whole story.  And you used a backward insult on your F-4 statement.  Not the way that a moderator should act.  Maybe the trust placed in you is misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck is a "backward insult"?  You can doubt all you want, but that is a fact as far as the F-35's go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a fact as far as you can see (if it actually happened at all).  The construction of the F-35 is such that it's a snap to fix.  Engine change in less than 30 minutes, almost all the components are behind access panels, etc..  Outside of the internal fuel tanks, there isn't even a series of things that can ground a F-35A for more than a few hours at best.  Of course, it they had chosen to replace the internal fuel tanks they would have been there for a few weeks.  Your story doesn't hold up, blinky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Anything is a snap to fix when you have the parts to do so.  Lockheed promised there would be 1,013 of them in USAF inventory by now.  There are, in fact, only 179 of them.  Surprisingly enough, the supply chain for them isn't up to snuff.  Give them a couple of years and your statement about them being able to be rapidly brought back to operational status will probably be true.
> 
> It is not true....now.
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supply chain for the new squadrons are in place.  Just how long does it take to get anything from Luke AFB to LV.  once again, you are showing that you haven't a clue in operations.  Are you now going to claim you were a USAF Military Pilot in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you stand behind it.  Now.  Would you care to tell the class what you meant by it?  Did the F-35's both break?  Yes.  Did I make any other claim about them?  No.  Did I say it was cool seeing two Phantoms airborne again?  Yes.  Your response was "I give up on you".  I have no idea what you mean by that other than you are batshit crazy and will give an auto response that has no relationship to the world.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that both F-35As were grounded for a week.  I doubt your whole story.  And you used a backward insult on your F-4 statement.  Not the way that a moderator should act.  Maybe the trust placed in you is misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck is a "backward insult"?  You can doubt all you want, but that is a fact as far as the F-35's go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a fact as far as you can see (if it actually happened at all).  The construction of the F-35 is such that it's a snap to fix.  Engine change in less than 30 minutes, almost all the components are behind access panels, etc..  Outside of the internal fuel tanks, there isn't even a series of things that can ground a F-35A for more than a few hours at best.  Of course, it they had chosen to replace the internal fuel tanks they would have been there for a few weeks.  Your story doesn't hold up, blinky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Anything is a snap to fix when you have the parts to do so.  Lockheed promised there would be 1,013 of them in USAF inventory by now.  There are, in fact, only 179 of them.  Surprisingly enough, the supply chain for them isn't up to snuff.  Give them a couple of years and your statement about them being able to be rapidly brought back to operational status will probably be true.
> 
> It is not true....now.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...








Yaaah, there is a supply chain.  There is precious little in it though as they are trying like hell to get aircraft to the squadrons.  They are almost 900 aircraft short from what was promised.  Guess what, the squadron supply chains aren't getting shit for a while.   And it's not a new problem.  It is a systemic problem that has been affecting almost all of the aircraft in the inventory.   Amazingly enough the obama admin wished to buy shiny new toys, but, failed to adequately support them.  Where have we heard that before?


*'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts*

*Then there is the shortage of parts, which is pushing the Air Force to get creative in order to keep these planes airborne. They have had to cannibalize out-of-service planes from what is known as "The Boneyard," a graveyard in the Arizona desert for jets that are no longer flying.

They strip old planes of parts, but now there aren't many left -- posing an obvious problem.

Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps, they even cannibalize museum aircraft to find the parts they need to get planes back into combat.

Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground.
*


'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that both F-35As were grounded for a week.  I doubt your whole story.  And you used a backward insult on your F-4 statement.  Not the way that a moderator should act.  Maybe the trust placed in you is misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck is a "backward insult"?  You can doubt all you want, but that is a fact as far as the F-35's go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a fact as far as you can see (if it actually happened at all).  The construction of the F-35 is such that it's a snap to fix.  Engine change in less than 30 minutes, almost all the components are behind access panels, etc..  Outside of the internal fuel tanks, there isn't even a series of things that can ground a F-35A for more than a few hours at best.  Of course, it they had chosen to replace the internal fuel tanks they would have been there for a few weeks.  Your story doesn't hold up, blinky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Anything is a snap to fix when you have the parts to do so.  Lockheed promised there would be 1,013 of them in USAF inventory by now.  There are, in fact, only 179 of them.  Surprisingly enough, the supply chain for them isn't up to snuff.  Give them a couple of years and your statement about them being able to be rapidly brought back to operational status will probably be true.
> 
> It is not true....now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaah, there is a supply chain.  There is precious little in it though as they are trying like hell to get aircraft to the squadrons.  They are almost 900 aircraft short from what was promised.  Guess what, the squadron supply chains aren't getting shit for a while.   And it's not a new problem.  It is a systemic problem that has been affecting almost all of the aircraft in the inventory.   Amazingly enough the obama admin wished to buy shiny new toys, but, failed to adequately support them.  Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> *'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts*
> 
> *Then there is the shortage of parts, which is pushing the Air Force to get creative in order to keep these planes airborne. They have had to cannibalize out-of-service planes from what is known as "The Boneyard," a graveyard in the Arizona desert for jets that are no longer flying.*
> 
> *They strip old planes of parts, but now there aren't many left -- posing an obvious problem.*
> 
> *Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps, they even cannibalize museum aircraft to find the parts they need to get planes back into combat.*
> 
> *Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground.*
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts
Click to expand...


I can see you have never heard the name "Hangar Queen".  Even though it's not supposed to happen, it is a fact of life.  The Bird might be in hangar queen status for a week, or two then it's put back together and goes back on the line.  This probably goes back to the Wright Flyer.  Just a way to get the parts needed quicker than the normal supply chain.  AS hard as you anti USAF idiots try, there is no story here.

"The Bone" is no  longer in production including many of the spare parts.  In the early 70s, we went through the same thing with the C-124C.  It's not listed in the active inventory but low and behold, there sat two in Anchorage flying their merry heads off.  Every "Shakey" was high time.  They spent most of their lives flying over the water long distance flights.  The reason they were still around was that they were the only bird in the inventory that could land on a gravel runway while carrying an eight wheeled emergency fire truck.  When one was lost or would run out of time on the Air Frame we would either strip it in place (sinking it into the ocean) or fly the bird down to DM (boneyard), park it right next to the one we wanted, strip all the good stuff from one and transfer it to the one we are taking.  We would fly the New? bird out of there.  This is why the Boneyard was created.  Using it may sound shocking to you but there really isn't any news here.

The AV8B has long since gone out of production.  Just for spare parts, when the British retired their AV8As, the Marines bought them for their own boneyard so they would have parts.  The parts are no longer in production so you do what you have to do.

All of these examples are to show that Hangar Queens, boneyards and easter egg hunts are as old as flight itself.  Right now, the F-18C, F-16A, F-15C, B-52, all the aging birds are using up the resources quickly out of the Boneyards.  When that resource has been consumed then all the rest join their ghosts in DM and meet the wrecking ball.  

What may be cutting news to you may be old hat to us old timers.  Three Aircraft come to mind as being headed the rest of the journey; AV8B, F-18C and A-10C.  All three are no longer in production and are hanging on a wing and a prayer.  All three's lives have been or are going to be life extended.  But you can only do that for so long before they start falling out of the sky.  Your "Breaking News" ain't so breaking at all.  It's old history.


----------



## I amso IR

Read this this morning, 11/23/16, in my email copy of Defense One. It would appear the F35B lives to fight another day. The bird communicated with a surface warship to shoot down a drone. That is part of the communications app allowing the bird to use fleet weapons systems to down targets while on station. Gotta love this plane!
http://link.defenseone.com/click/81...3RvZGF5X25s/564727c1e9328bc924da8d46Bab004aa9


----------



## I amso IR

I am not one to say, "I told you so". But I will.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck is a "backward insult"?  You can doubt all you want, but that is a fact as far as the F-35's go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a fact as far as you can see (if it actually happened at all).  The construction of the F-35 is such that it's a snap to fix.  Engine change in less than 30 minutes, almost all the components are behind access panels, etc..  Outside of the internal fuel tanks, there isn't even a series of things that can ground a F-35A for more than a few hours at best.  Of course, it they had chosen to replace the internal fuel tanks they would have been there for a few weeks.  Your story doesn't hold up, blinky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Anything is a snap to fix when you have the parts to do so.  Lockheed promised there would be 1,013 of them in USAF inventory by now.  There are, in fact, only 179 of them.  Surprisingly enough, the supply chain for them isn't up to snuff.  Give them a couple of years and your statement about them being able to be rapidly brought back to operational status will probably be true.
> 
> It is not true....now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaah, there is a supply chain.  There is precious little in it though as they are trying like hell to get aircraft to the squadrons.  They are almost 900 aircraft short from what was promised.  Guess what, the squadron supply chains aren't getting shit for a while.   And it's not a new problem.  It is a systemic problem that has been affecting almost all of the aircraft in the inventory.   Amazingly enough the obama admin wished to buy shiny new toys, but, failed to adequately support them.  Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> *'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts*
> 
> *Then there is the shortage of parts, which is pushing the Air Force to get creative in order to keep these planes airborne. They have had to cannibalize out-of-service planes from what is known as "The Boneyard," a graveyard in the Arizona desert for jets that are no longer flying.*
> 
> *They strip old planes of parts, but now there aren't many left -- posing an obvious problem.*
> 
> *Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps, they even cannibalize museum aircraft to find the parts they need to get planes back into combat.*
> 
> *Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground.*
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you have never heard the name "Hangar Queen".  Even though it's not supposed to happen, it is a fact of life.  The Bird might be in hangar queen status for a week, or two then it's put back together and goes back on the line.  This probably goes back to the Wright Flyer.  Just a way to get the parts needed quicker than the normal supply chain.  AS hard as you anti USAF idiots try, there is no story here.
> 
> "The Bone" is no  longer in production including many of the spare parts.  In the early 70s, we went through the same thing with the C-124C.  It's not listed in the active inventory but low and behold, there sat two in Anchorage flying their merry heads off.  Every "Shakey" was high time.  They spent most of their lives flying over the water long distance flights.  The reason they were still around was that they were the only bird in the inventory that could land on a gravel runway while carrying an eight wheeled emergency fire truck.  When one was lost or would run out of time on the Air Frame we would either strip it in place (sinking it into the ocean) or fly the bird down to DM (boneyard), park it right next to the one we wanted, strip all the good stuff from one and transfer it to the one we are taking.  We would fly the New? bird out of there.  This is why the Boneyard was created.  Using it may sound shocking to you but there really isn't any news here.
> 
> The AV8B has long since gone out of production.  Just for spare parts, when the British retired their AV8As, the Marines bought them for their own boneyard so they would have parts.  The parts are no longer in production so you do what you have to do.
> 
> All of these examples are to show that Hangar Queens, boneyards and easter egg hunts are as old as flight itself.  Right now, the F-18C, F-16A, F-15C, B-52, all the aging birds are using up the resources quickly out of the Boneyards.  When that resource has been consumed then all the rest join their ghosts in DM and meet the wrecking ball.
> 
> What may be cutting news to you may be old hat to us old timers.  Three Aircraft come to mind as being headed the rest of the journey; AV8B, F-18C and A-10C.  All three are no longer in production and are hanging on a wing and a prayer.  All three's lives have been or are going to be life extended.  But you can only do that for so long before they start falling out of the sky.  Your "Breaking News" ain't so breaking at all.  It's old history.
Click to expand...







Dude, you are full of crap.  I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be.   You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner.  The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits.  That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.  

That is a fact.  I don't like it.  But it is a fact.  Trying to assert hangar queens as  "normal"  is horse poo.  Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life.  Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a fact as far as you can see (if it actually happened at all).  The construction of the F-35 is such that it's a snap to fix.  Engine change in less than 30 minutes, almost all the components are behind access panels, etc..  Outside of the internal fuel tanks, there isn't even a series of things that can ground a F-35A for more than a few hours at best.  Of course, it they had chosen to replace the internal fuel tanks they would have been there for a few weeks.  Your story doesn't hold up, blinky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Anything is a snap to fix when you have the parts to do so.  Lockheed promised there would be 1,013 of them in USAF inventory by now.  There are, in fact, only 179 of them.  Surprisingly enough, the supply chain for them isn't up to snuff.  Give them a couple of years and your statement about them being able to be rapidly brought back to operational status will probably be true.
> 
> It is not true....now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaah, there is a supply chain.  There is precious little in it though as they are trying like hell to get aircraft to the squadrons.  They are almost 900 aircraft short from what was promised.  Guess what, the squadron supply chains aren't getting shit for a while.   And it's not a new problem.  It is a systemic problem that has been affecting almost all of the aircraft in the inventory.   Amazingly enough the obama admin wished to buy shiny new toys, but, failed to adequately support them.  Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> *'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts*
> 
> *Then there is the shortage of parts, which is pushing the Air Force to get creative in order to keep these planes airborne. They have had to cannibalize out-of-service planes from what is known as "The Boneyard," a graveyard in the Arizona desert for jets that are no longer flying.*
> 
> *They strip old planes of parts, but now there aren't many left -- posing an obvious problem.*
> 
> *Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps, they even cannibalize museum aircraft to find the parts they need to get planes back into combat.*
> 
> *Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground.*
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you have never heard the name "Hangar Queen".  Even though it's not supposed to happen, it is a fact of life.  The Bird might be in hangar queen status for a week, or two then it's put back together and goes back on the line.  This probably goes back to the Wright Flyer.  Just a way to get the parts needed quicker than the normal supply chain.  AS hard as you anti USAF idiots try, there is no story here.
> 
> "The Bone" is no  longer in production including many of the spare parts.  In the early 70s, we went through the same thing with the C-124C.  It's not listed in the active inventory but low and behold, there sat two in Anchorage flying their merry heads off.  Every "Shakey" was high time.  They spent most of their lives flying over the water long distance flights.  The reason they were still around was that they were the only bird in the inventory that could land on a gravel runway while carrying an eight wheeled emergency fire truck.  When one was lost or would run out of time on the Air Frame we would either strip it in place (sinking it into the ocean) or fly the bird down to DM (boneyard), park it right next to the one we wanted, strip all the good stuff from one and transfer it to the one we are taking.  We would fly the New? bird out of there.  This is why the Boneyard was created.  Using it may sound shocking to you but there really isn't any news here.
> 
> The AV8B has long since gone out of production.  Just for spare parts, when the British retired their AV8As, the Marines bought them for their own boneyard so they would have parts.  The parts are no longer in production so you do what you have to do.
> 
> All of these examples are to show that Hangar Queens, boneyards and easter egg hunts are as old as flight itself.  Right now, the F-18C, F-16A, F-15C, B-52, all the aging birds are using up the resources quickly out of the Boneyards.  When that resource has been consumed then all the rest join their ghosts in DM and meet the wrecking ball.
> 
> What may be cutting news to you may be old hat to us old timers.  Three Aircraft come to mind as being headed the rest of the journey; AV8B, F-18C and A-10C.  All three are no longer in production and are hanging on a wing and a prayer.  All three's lives have been or are going to be life extended.  But you can only do that for so long before they start falling out of the sky.  Your "Breaking News" ain't so breaking at all.  It's old history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are full of crap.  I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be.   You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner.  The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits.  That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.
> 
> That is a fact.  I don't like it.  But it is a fact.  Trying to assert hangar queens as  "normal"  is horse poo.  Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life.  Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.
Click to expand...


Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again?  How many years do you have as a Line Chief.  How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves.  News flash:  When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew.  Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day.  Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition.  All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.

Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted.  You would know that it's against regulation.  But it happens all the time.  If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two.  There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions.  There never is.  But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned.  Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around.  It's not Regulation, but it is normal.  Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted.  Just shows how far down the pike you really were.

A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war.  They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> I am not one to say, "I told you so". But I will.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Anything is a snap to fix when you have the parts to do so.  Lockheed promised there would be 1,013 of them in USAF inventory by now.  There are, in fact, only 179 of them.  Surprisingly enough, the supply chain for them isn't up to snuff.  Give them a couple of years and your statement about them being able to be rapidly brought back to operational status will probably be true.
> 
> It is not true....now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaah, there is a supply chain.  There is precious little in it though as they are trying like hell to get aircraft to the squadrons.  They are almost 900 aircraft short from what was promised.  Guess what, the squadron supply chains aren't getting shit for a while.   And it's not a new problem.  It is a systemic problem that has been affecting almost all of the aircraft in the inventory.   Amazingly enough the obama admin wished to buy shiny new toys, but, failed to adequately support them.  Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> *'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts*
> 
> *Then there is the shortage of parts, which is pushing the Air Force to get creative in order to keep these planes airborne. They have had to cannibalize out-of-service planes from what is known as "The Boneyard," a graveyard in the Arizona desert for jets that are no longer flying.*
> 
> *They strip old planes of parts, but now there aren't many left -- posing an obvious problem.*
> 
> *Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps, they even cannibalize museum aircraft to find the parts they need to get planes back into combat.*
> 
> *Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground.*
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you have never heard the name "Hangar Queen".  Even though it's not supposed to happen, it is a fact of life.  The Bird might be in hangar queen status for a week, or two then it's put back together and goes back on the line.  This probably goes back to the Wright Flyer.  Just a way to get the parts needed quicker than the normal supply chain.  AS hard as you anti USAF idiots try, there is no story here.
> 
> "The Bone" is no  longer in production including many of the spare parts.  In the early 70s, we went through the same thing with the C-124C.  It's not listed in the active inventory but low and behold, there sat two in Anchorage flying their merry heads off.  Every "Shakey" was high time.  They spent most of their lives flying over the water long distance flights.  The reason they were still around was that they were the only bird in the inventory that could land on a gravel runway while carrying an eight wheeled emergency fire truck.  When one was lost or would run out of time on the Air Frame we would either strip it in place (sinking it into the ocean) or fly the bird down to DM (boneyard), park it right next to the one we wanted, strip all the good stuff from one and transfer it to the one we are taking.  We would fly the New? bird out of there.  This is why the Boneyard was created.  Using it may sound shocking to you but there really isn't any news here.
> 
> The AV8B has long since gone out of production.  Just for spare parts, when the British retired their AV8As, the Marines bought them for their own boneyard so they would have parts.  The parts are no longer in production so you do what you have to do.
> 
> All of these examples are to show that Hangar Queens, boneyards and easter egg hunts are as old as flight itself.  Right now, the F-18C, F-16A, F-15C, B-52, all the aging birds are using up the resources quickly out of the Boneyards.  When that resource has been consumed then all the rest join their ghosts in DM and meet the wrecking ball.
> 
> What may be cutting news to you may be old hat to us old timers.  Three Aircraft come to mind as being headed the rest of the journey; AV8B, F-18C and A-10C.  All three are no longer in production and are hanging on a wing and a prayer.  All three's lives have been or are going to be life extended.  But you can only do that for so long before they start falling out of the sky.  Your "Breaking News" ain't so breaking at all.  It's old history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are full of crap.  I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be.   You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner.  The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits.  That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.
> 
> That is a fact.  I don't like it.  But it is a fact.  Trying to assert hangar queens as  "normal"  is horse poo.  Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life.  Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again?  How many years do you have as a Line Chief.  How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves.  News flash:  When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew.  Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day.  Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition.  All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.
> 
> Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted.  You would know that it's against regulation.  But it happens all the time.  If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two.  There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions.  There never is.  But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned.  Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around.  It's not Regulation, but it is normal.  Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted.  Just shows how far down the pike you really were.
> 
> A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war.  They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.
Click to expand...








None.  And none.  And it doesn't matter.  You were the worker bee.  I knew your boss.  And, he was a damned good friend of mine.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35 Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35


----------



## I amso IR

Manonthestreet said:


> Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35 Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35



You failed to add the last two words or the end of the complete sentence. "For Now"!  Yep, they favor the F-18, "For Now". But, they will be back when the heavy lifting is complete, and it will be completed. Not a bad days work, using an Cruiser to bring down the enemy, thereby saving it's own ammo load for another unsuspecting drone or AC it acquired 125 miles out, flying blind. Not a bad days work at all. And honestly, so what, just think of what the follow on's will be capable of. That is probably the Canadian thinking, We will fly the FA18 in a backup role and allow the F35 ABC use us as it wishes, when it wishes. And perhaps they are waiting for the 2017 Black Friday sale. What ever, it simply does not matter. The "thirty five" rules, over and over and over, just like the Energizer Bunny.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I amso IR said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35 Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to add the last two words or the end of the complete sentence. "For Now"!  Yep, they favor the F-18, "For Now". But, they will be back when the heavy lifting is complete, and it will be completed. Not a bad days work, using an Cruiser to bring down the enemy, thereby saving it's own ammo load for another unsuspecting drone or AC it acquired 125 miles out, flying blind. Not a bad days work at all. And honestly, so what, just think of what the follow on's will be capable of. That is probably the Canadian thinking, We will fly the FA18 in a backup role and allow the F35 ABC use us as it wishes, when it wishes. And perhaps they are waiting for the 2017 Black Friday sale. What ever, it simply does not matter. The "thirty five" rules, over and over and over, just like the Energizer Bunny.
Click to expand...

When failure and cost over run kills it......they will be looking smart........


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaah, there is a supply chain.  There is precious little in it though as they are trying like hell to get aircraft to the squadrons.  They are almost 900 aircraft short from what was promised.  Guess what, the squadron supply chains aren't getting shit for a while.   And it's not a new problem.  It is a systemic problem that has been affecting almost all of the aircraft in the inventory.   Amazingly enough the obama admin wished to buy shiny new toys, but, failed to adequately support them.  Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> *'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts*
> 
> *Then there is the shortage of parts, which is pushing the Air Force to get creative in order to keep these planes airborne. They have had to cannibalize out-of-service planes from what is known as "The Boneyard," a graveyard in the Arizona desert for jets that are no longer flying.*
> 
> *They strip old planes of parts, but now there aren't many left -- posing an obvious problem.*
> 
> *Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps, they even cannibalize museum aircraft to find the parts they need to get planes back into combat.*
> 
> *Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground.*
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you have never heard the name "Hangar Queen".  Even though it's not supposed to happen, it is a fact of life.  The Bird might be in hangar queen status for a week, or two then it's put back together and goes back on the line.  This probably goes back to the Wright Flyer.  Just a way to get the parts needed quicker than the normal supply chain.  AS hard as you anti USAF idiots try, there is no story here.
> 
> "The Bone" is no  longer in production including many of the spare parts.  In the early 70s, we went through the same thing with the C-124C.  It's not listed in the active inventory but low and behold, there sat two in Anchorage flying their merry heads off.  Every "Shakey" was high time.  They spent most of their lives flying over the water long distance flights.  The reason they were still around was that they were the only bird in the inventory that could land on a gravel runway while carrying an eight wheeled emergency fire truck.  When one was lost or would run out of time on the Air Frame we would either strip it in place (sinking it into the ocean) or fly the bird down to DM (boneyard), park it right next to the one we wanted, strip all the good stuff from one and transfer it to the one we are taking.  We would fly the New? bird out of there.  This is why the Boneyard was created.  Using it may sound shocking to you but there really isn't any news here.
> 
> The AV8B has long since gone out of production.  Just for spare parts, when the British retired their AV8As, the Marines bought them for their own boneyard so they would have parts.  The parts are no longer in production so you do what you have to do.
> 
> All of these examples are to show that Hangar Queens, boneyards and easter egg hunts are as old as flight itself.  Right now, the F-18C, F-16A, F-15C, B-52, all the aging birds are using up the resources quickly out of the Boneyards.  When that resource has been consumed then all the rest join their ghosts in DM and meet the wrecking ball.
> 
> What may be cutting news to you may be old hat to us old timers.  Three Aircraft come to mind as being headed the rest of the journey; AV8B, F-18C and A-10C.  All three are no longer in production and are hanging on a wing and a prayer.  All three's lives have been or are going to be life extended.  But you can only do that for so long before they start falling out of the sky.  Your "Breaking News" ain't so breaking at all.  It's old history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are full of crap.  I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be.   You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner.  The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits.  That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.
> 
> That is a fact.  I don't like it.  But it is a fact.  Trying to assert hangar queens as  "normal"  is horse poo.  Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life.  Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again?  How many years do you have as a Line Chief.  How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves.  News flash:  When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew.  Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day.  Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition.  All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.
> 
> Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted.  You would know that it's against regulation.  But it happens all the time.  If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two.  There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions.  There never is.  But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned.  Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around.  It's not Regulation, but it is normal.  Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted.  Just shows how far down the pike you really were.
> 
> A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war.  They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  And none.  And it doesn't matter.  You were the worker bee.  I knew your boss.  And, he was a damned good friend of mine.
Click to expand...


Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making.  I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well.  Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35 Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to add the last two words or the end of the complete sentence. "For Now"!  Yep, they favor the F-18, "For Now". But, they will be back when the heavy lifting is complete, and it will be completed. Not a bad days work, using an Cruiser to bring down the enemy, thereby saving it's own ammo load for another unsuspecting drone or AC it acquired 125 miles out, flying blind. Not a bad days work at all. And honestly, so what, just think of what the follow on's will be capable of. That is probably the Canadian thinking, We will fly the FA18 in a backup role and allow the F35 ABC use us as it wishes, when it wishes. And perhaps they are waiting for the 2017 Black Friday sale. What ever, it simply does not matter. The "thirty five" rules, over and over and over, just like the Energizer Bunny.
Click to expand...


Canada has quite a few high time F-18C models.  It's either get them replaced with some kind of newer bird or just watch them fall out of the sky.  The F-18E/F is a proven bird and can keep their pilots flying and safe until the F-35 shows up with enough numbers to get the rest of the C models off the flight line.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaah, there is a supply chain.  There is precious little in it though as they are trying like hell to get aircraft to the squadrons.  They are almost 900 aircraft short from what was promised.  Guess what, the squadron supply chains aren't getting shit for a while.   And it's not a new problem.  It is a systemic problem that has been affecting almost all of the aircraft in the inventory.   Amazingly enough the obama admin wished to buy shiny new toys, but, failed to adequately support them.  Where have we heard that before?
> 
> 
> *'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts*
> 
> *Then there is the shortage of parts, which is pushing the Air Force to get creative in order to keep these planes airborne. They have had to cannibalize out-of-service planes from what is known as "The Boneyard," a graveyard in the Arizona desert for jets that are no longer flying.*
> 
> *They strip old planes of parts, but now there aren't many left -- posing an obvious problem.*
> 
> *Like their counterparts in the Marine Corps, they even cannibalize museum aircraft to find the parts they need to get planes back into combat.*
> 
> *Capt. Travis Lytton, who works to keep his squadron of B-1’s airborne, showed Fox News a museum aircraft where his maintainers stripped a part in order to make sure one of his B-1s could steer properly on the ground.*
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wiped Out': Air Force losing pilots and planes to cuts, scrounging for spare parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you have never heard the name "Hangar Queen".  Even though it's not supposed to happen, it is a fact of life.  The Bird might be in hangar queen status for a week, or two then it's put back together and goes back on the line.  This probably goes back to the Wright Flyer.  Just a way to get the parts needed quicker than the normal supply chain.  AS hard as you anti USAF idiots try, there is no story here.
> 
> "The Bone" is no  longer in production including many of the spare parts.  In the early 70s, we went through the same thing with the C-124C.  It's not listed in the active inventory but low and behold, there sat two in Anchorage flying their merry heads off.  Every "Shakey" was high time.  They spent most of their lives flying over the water long distance flights.  The reason they were still around was that they were the only bird in the inventory that could land on a gravel runway while carrying an eight wheeled emergency fire truck.  When one was lost or would run out of time on the Air Frame we would either strip it in place (sinking it into the ocean) or fly the bird down to DM (boneyard), park it right next to the one we wanted, strip all the good stuff from one and transfer it to the one we are taking.  We would fly the New? bird out of there.  This is why the Boneyard was created.  Using it may sound shocking to you but there really isn't any news here.
> 
> The AV8B has long since gone out of production.  Just for spare parts, when the British retired their AV8As, the Marines bought them for their own boneyard so they would have parts.  The parts are no longer in production so you do what you have to do.
> 
> All of these examples are to show that Hangar Queens, boneyards and easter egg hunts are as old as flight itself.  Right now, the F-18C, F-16A, F-15C, B-52, all the aging birds are using up the resources quickly out of the Boneyards.  When that resource has been consumed then all the rest join their ghosts in DM and meet the wrecking ball.
> 
> What may be cutting news to you may be old hat to us old timers.  Three Aircraft come to mind as being headed the rest of the journey; AV8B, F-18C and A-10C.  All three are no longer in production and are hanging on a wing and a prayer.  All three's lives have been or are going to be life extended.  But you can only do that for so long before they start falling out of the sky.  Your "Breaking News" ain't so breaking at all.  It's old history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are full of crap.  I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be.   You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner.  The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits.  That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.
> 
> That is a fact.  I don't like it.  But it is a fact.  Trying to assert hangar queens as  "normal"  is horse poo.  Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life.  Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again?  How many years do you have as a Line Chief.  How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves.  News flash:  When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew.  Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day.  Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition.  All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.
> 
> Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted.  You would know that it's against regulation.  But it happens all the time.  If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two.  There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions.  There never is.  But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned.  Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around.  It's not Regulation, but it is normal.  Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted.  Just shows how far down the pike you really were.
> 
> A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war.  They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  And none.  And it doesn't matter.  You were the worker bee.  I knew your boss.  And, he was a damned good friend of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making.  I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well.  Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.
Click to expand...








Why bother.  The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable.  But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine.  However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF.  The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke.  He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you have never heard the name "Hangar Queen".  Even though it's not supposed to happen, it is a fact of life.  The Bird might be in hangar queen status for a week, or two then it's put back together and goes back on the line.  This probably goes back to the Wright Flyer.  Just a way to get the parts needed quicker than the normal supply chain.  AS hard as you anti USAF idiots try, there is no story here.
> 
> "The Bone" is no  longer in production including many of the spare parts.  In the early 70s, we went through the same thing with the C-124C.  It's not listed in the active inventory but low and behold, there sat two in Anchorage flying their merry heads off.  Every "Shakey" was high time.  They spent most of their lives flying over the water long distance flights.  The reason they were still around was that they were the only bird in the inventory that could land on a gravel runway while carrying an eight wheeled emergency fire truck.  When one was lost or would run out of time on the Air Frame we would either strip it in place (sinking it into the ocean) or fly the bird down to DM (boneyard), park it right next to the one we wanted, strip all the good stuff from one and transfer it to the one we are taking.  We would fly the New? bird out of there.  This is why the Boneyard was created.  Using it may sound shocking to you but there really isn't any news here.
> 
> The AV8B has long since gone out of production.  Just for spare parts, when the British retired their AV8As, the Marines bought them for their own boneyard so they would have parts.  The parts are no longer in production so you do what you have to do.
> 
> All of these examples are to show that Hangar Queens, boneyards and easter egg hunts are as old as flight itself.  Right now, the F-18C, F-16A, F-15C, B-52, all the aging birds are using up the resources quickly out of the Boneyards.  When that resource has been consumed then all the rest join their ghosts in DM and meet the wrecking ball.
> 
> What may be cutting news to you may be old hat to us old timers.  Three Aircraft come to mind as being headed the rest of the journey; AV8B, F-18C and A-10C.  All three are no longer in production and are hanging on a wing and a prayer.  All three's lives have been or are going to be life extended.  But you can only do that for so long before they start falling out of the sky.  Your "Breaking News" ain't so breaking at all.  It's old history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are full of crap.  I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be.   You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner.  The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits.  That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.
> 
> That is a fact.  I don't like it.  But it is a fact.  Trying to assert hangar queens as  "normal"  is horse poo.  Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life.  Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again?  How many years do you have as a Line Chief.  How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves.  News flash:  When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew.  Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day.  Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition.  All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.
> 
> Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted.  You would know that it's against regulation.  But it happens all the time.  If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two.  There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions.  There never is.  But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned.  Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around.  It's not Regulation, but it is normal.  Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted.  Just shows how far down the pike you really were.
> 
> A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war.  They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  And none.  And it doesn't matter.  You were the worker bee.  I knew your boss.  And, he was a damned good friend of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making.  I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well.  Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother.  The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable.  But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine.  However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF.  The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke.  He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.
Click to expand...


I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do.  Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it.  I didn't start out in Maintenance.  I ended up there, that's all.  I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.  

BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties.  I am in the second half of 60s, myself.  I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things.  Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job.  But they really can't.  

I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones.  I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving.  I changed because I was damaged for life.  Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ.  Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again?  Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me.  But I was broken.  I still am.  

So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit.  That ship has already sailed.


----------



## I amso IR

Daryl/Westwall, lighten up a bit guys. That is some advice from an aged First Sergeant in his mid70's. Nasty is simply nasty and more so when personal. You guys have to much going for yourselves to get personal. Again, please, lighten up a bit!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I amso IR said:


> Daryl/Westwall, lighten up a bit guys. That is some advice from an aged First Sergeant in his mid70's. Nasty is simply nasty and more so when personal. You guys have to much going for yourselves to get personal. Again, please, lighten up a bit!



I'm game.  I have zero to either lose or gain from this nonsense.


----------



## I amso IR

Daryl Hunt said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl/Westwall, lighten up a bit guys. That is some advice from an aged First Sergeant in his mid70's. Nasty is simply nasty and more so when personal. You guys have to much going for yourselves to get personal. Again, please, lighten up a bit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm game.  I have zero to either lose or gain from this nonsense.
Click to expand...


Thank you Daryl. Westwall what say you?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, speaking during the State of the Air Force address at the Pentagon, said of the Air Force's dwindling dominance: "I believe it's a crisis: air superiority is not an American birthright. It's actually something you have to fight for and maintain."
Only one US airframe remains head-and-shoulders above any and all competition: the F-22 Raptor. 
The US's military edge over Russia and China has come down to one plane


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, speaking during the State of the Air Force address at the Pentagon, said of the Air Force's dwindling dominance: "I believe it's a crisis: air superiority is not an American birthright. It's actually something you have to fight for and maintain."
> Only one US airframe remains head-and-shoulders above any and all competition: the F-22 Raptor.
> The US's military edge over Russia and China has come down to one plane



And we spent the most for it as well.  It's damned expensive.  Costs about twice what a F-35A costs to build.  Someday, we may have to put the F-22 or it's followon back into production.  The high time F-15Cs are not going to last much longer.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 should have been zeroed out.....cross sig is what 25 times larger......and I would bet cost has been comparable as you are still fixing everyone you build and have built for zero combat capability after what 20 yrs


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 should have been zeroed out.....cross sig is what 25 times larger......and I would bet cost has been comparable as you are still fixing everyone you build and have built for zero combat capability after what 20 yrs



Considering our own ground and air radars have to get within 35 miles of the F-35 just to know it's there doesn't sound so bad.  The Russians have to be even closer.  If the F-35A has internal bombs (mini jdams) it can do a bomb toss well outside your radar.  

Think of this, the Russians and the Chinese have Stealth looking AC but they aren't really stealthy.  One way for them to save face is to announce they are working on a 6th gen fighter.  Except, unless you can build a 5th gen (they can't) you really can't build a 6th gen either.  

The ONLY thing that the F-35A doesn't do excellent is a real up close knife fight.  Since the F-35A sees you first, he picks the fight.  Not the other way around.  And if it comes to an up close and personal I imagine that the Russians are more than likely mixing it up with the F-15C/E which matches or exceeds anything they have including the SU-35.  Thrust Vectoring only works at low speeds.  And if you are low speeds then you are going to be deader than dead.  The F-15 will make the fight at just under transonic flight where your thrust vectoring has zero advantage.  Use it at that speed and you can easily exceed 10 gees and turn your pilots brains to mush.  Again, the F-15C/E will see them first and can dictate the beginning fight.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 should have been zeroed out.....cross sig is what 25 times larger......and I would bet cost has been comparable as you are still fixing everyone you build and have built for zero combat capability after what 20 yrs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering our own ground and air radars have to get within 35 miles of the F-35 just to know it's there doesn't sound so bad.  The Russians have to be even closer.  If the F-35A has internal bombs (mini jdams) it can do a bomb toss well outside your radar.
> 
> Think of this, the Russians and the Chinese have Stealth looking AC but they aren't really stealthy.  One way for them to save face is to announce they are working on a 6th gen fighter.  Except, unless you can build a 5th gen (they can't) you really can't build a 6th gen either.
> 
> The ONLY thing that the F-35A doesn't do excellent is a real up close knife fight.  Since the F-35A sees you first, he picks the fight.  Not the other way around.  And if it comes to an up close and personal I imagine that the Russians are more than likely mixing it up with the F-15C/E which matches or exceeds anything they have including the SU-35.  Thrust Vectoring only works at low speeds.  And if you are low speeds then you are going to be deader than dead.  The F-15 will make the fight at just under transonic flight where your thrust vectoring has zero advantage.  Use it at that speed and you can easily exceed 10 gees and turn your pilots brains to mush.  Again, the F-15C/E will see them first and can dictate the beginning fight.
Click to expand...

LLMMMAAOOOOO werent you guys saying fighter pilots loved its dog fight skills........better go back and read your posts over you are getting lost in your lies


----------



## Manonthestreet

The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said. U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source   More proof you will not be seeing F-35 in combat for yrs.......or will see just the ones that have been made cause cancellation it right around the corner


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 should have been zeroed out.....cross sig is what 25 times larger......and I would bet cost has been comparable as you are still fixing everyone you build and have built for zero combat capability after what 20 yrs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering our own ground and air radars have to get within 35 miles of the F-35 just to know it's there doesn't sound so bad.  The Russians have to be even closer.  If the F-35A has internal bombs (mini jdams) it can do a bomb toss well outside your radar.
> 
> Think of this, the Russians and the Chinese have Stealth looking AC but they aren't really stealthy.  One way for them to save face is to announce they are working on a 6th gen fighter.  Except, unless you can build a 5th gen (they can't) you really can't build a 6th gen either.
> 
> The ONLY thing that the F-35A doesn't do excellent is a real up close knife fight.  Since the F-35A sees you first, he picks the fight.  Not the other way around.  And if it comes to an up close and personal I imagine that the Russians are more than likely mixing it up with the F-15C/E which matches or exceeds anything they have including the SU-35.  Thrust Vectoring only works at low speeds.  And if you are low speeds then you are going to be deader than dead.  The F-15 will make the fight at just under transonic flight where your thrust vectoring has zero advantage.  Use it at that speed and you can easily exceed 10 gees and turn your pilots brains to mush.  Again, the F-15C/E will see them first and can dictate the beginning fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMAAOOOOO werent you guys saying fighter pilots loved its dog fight skills........better go back and read your posts over you are getting lost in your lies
Click to expand...


I don't need to read my own posts.  The F-35 has the ability to vector in other birds weapons without firing a shot themselves.  This means that the F-15/16/18 that are lurching just beyond enemy radar range can fire and the F-35 can guide it in.  The F-35 is now a huge force multiplier.  The only thing the enemy will see is the barrage of incoming ordinance.  It's just another tool in the US Grab bag of magic.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 should have been zeroed out.....cross sig is what 25 times larger......and I would bet cost has been comparable as you are still fixing everyone you build and have built for zero combat capability after what 20 yrs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering our own ground and air radars have to get within 35 miles of the F-35 just to know it's there doesn't sound so bad.  The Russians have to be even closer.  If the F-35A has internal bombs (mini jdams) it can do a bomb toss well outside your radar.
> 
> Think of this, the Russians and the Chinese have Stealth looking AC but they aren't really stealthy.  One way for them to save face is to announce they are working on a 6th gen fighter.  Except, unless you can build a 5th gen (they can't) you really can't build a 6th gen either.
> 
> The ONLY thing that the F-35A doesn't do excellent is a real up close knife fight.  Since the F-35A sees you first, he picks the fight.  Not the other way around.  And if it comes to an up close and personal I imagine that the Russians are more than likely mixing it up with the F-15C/E which matches or exceeds anything they have including the SU-35.  Thrust Vectoring only works at low speeds.  And if you are low speeds then you are going to be deader than dead.  The F-15 will make the fight at just under transonic flight where your thrust vectoring has zero advantage.  Use it at that speed and you can easily exceed 10 gees and turn your pilots brains to mush.  Again, the F-15C/E will see them first and can dictate the beginning fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMAAOOOOO werent you guys saying fighter pilots loved its dog fight skills........better go back and read your posts over you are getting lost in your lies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read my own posts.  The F-35 has the ability to vector in other birds weapons without firing a shot themselves.  This means that the F-15/16/18 that are lurching just beyond enemy radar range can fire and the F-35 can guide it in.  The F-35 is now a huge force multiplier.  The only thing the enemy will see is the barrage of incoming ordinance.  It's just another tool in the US Grab bag of magic.
Click to expand...

So its a specialty plane that wont do much fighting of its own because its under armed.....slow and low,,,,but each carrier will carry say half squadron of em to help out awacs and such


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said. U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source   More proof you will not be seeing F-35 in combat for yrs.......or will see just the ones that have been made cause cancellation it right around the corner



They will see the F-35C in force in 2018.  In the meantime, they have to get those flying coffins off the boats and into storage where they belong.  The Navy will also have the support of the Marine F-35B in the meantime.  The F-35B is already capable of taking over and directing in ship fired weapons.  

Nice try, Cupcake.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 should have been zeroed out.....cross sig is what 25 times larger......and I would bet cost has been comparable as you are still fixing everyone you build and have built for zero combat capability after what 20 yrs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering our own ground and air radars have to get within 35 miles of the F-35 just to know it's there doesn't sound so bad.  The Russians have to be even closer.  If the F-35A has internal bombs (mini jdams) it can do a bomb toss well outside your radar.
> 
> Think of this, the Russians and the Chinese have Stealth looking AC but they aren't really stealthy.  One way for them to save face is to announce they are working on a 6th gen fighter.  Except, unless you can build a 5th gen (they can't) you really can't build a 6th gen either.
> 
> The ONLY thing that the F-35A doesn't do excellent is a real up close knife fight.  Since the F-35A sees you first, he picks the fight.  Not the other way around.  And if it comes to an up close and personal I imagine that the Russians are more than likely mixing it up with the F-15C/E which matches or exceeds anything they have including the SU-35.  Thrust Vectoring only works at low speeds.  And if you are low speeds then you are going to be deader than dead.  The F-15 will make the fight at just under transonic flight where your thrust vectoring has zero advantage.  Use it at that speed and you can easily exceed 10 gees and turn your pilots brains to mush.  Again, the F-15C/E will see them first and can dictate the beginning fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LLMMMAAOOOOO werent you guys saying fighter pilots loved its dog fight skills........better go back and read your posts over you are getting lost in your lies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read my own posts.  The F-35 has the ability to vector in other birds weapons without firing a shot themselves.  This means that the F-15/16/18 that are lurching just beyond enemy radar range can fire and the F-35 can guide it in.  The F-35 is now a huge force multiplier.  The only thing the enemy will see is the barrage of incoming ordinance.  It's just another tool in the US Grab bag of magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So its a specialty plane that wont do much fighting of its own because its under armed.....slow and low,,,,but each carrier will carry say half squadron of em to help out awacs and such
Click to expand...


If the enemy want's to find out if it has teeth just try and get near it.  It has some mighty good teeth on it's own.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said. U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source   More proof you will not be seeing F-35 in combat for yrs.......or will see just the ones that have been made cause cancellation it right around the corner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will see the F-35C in force in 2018.  In the meantime, they have to get those flying coffins off the boats and into storage where they belong.  The Navy will also have the support of the Marine F-35B in the meantime.  The F-35B is already capable of taking over and directing in ship fired weapons.
> 
> Nice try, Cupcake.
Click to expand...

No ...no you wont which is why they are buying these.....I think specialty plane is best you'll get out of it....cant dogfight......20 times larger rcs than F-22.....no range.......no ability to carry ample weapons.......really is a disaster for what it was designed as


----------



## Uncensored2008

longknife said:


> It is a very serious problem.
> 
> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.
> 
> They got what they should've expected.



This is two major aircraft that have fizzled due to over reliance on stealth. The RAH66 Comanche was goring to be the most advance rotary aircraft of all time. On paper it was a stealth killing machine that made Werewolves howl in terror. In real life it was a pig that was unstable and easy to detect. At least we kept the Apache fleet.

The big concern with the JSF is they want to mothball the Hornets, Raptors and other effective fighters.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy plans to divest its older model Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in coming years and hopes to buy dozens of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to deal with a shortfall of strike fighters aboard its carriers, a Navy official said. U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source   More proof you will not be seeing F-35 in combat for yrs.......or will see just the ones that have been made cause cancellation it right around the corner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will see the F-35C in force in 2018.  In the meantime, they have to get those flying coffins off the boats and into storage where they belong.  The Navy will also have the support of the Marine F-35B in the meantime.  The F-35B is already capable of taking over and directing in ship fired weapons.
> 
> Nice try, Cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ...no you wont which is why they are buying these.....I think specialty plane is best you'll get out of it....cant dogfight......20 times larger rcs than F-22.....no range.......no ability to carry ample weapons.......really is a disaster for what it was designed as
Click to expand...


The Demo can't since it's limited to 6gs.  The F-35A in service pulls 9+ gees.  When in a turn, all birds are equal pulling the same amount of Gees.  And you can't pull much more than 9 gees unless you want to black out your pilot who will be bagged by the guy that stayed 9 gees and below.  

You keep carping about the RCS being bad.  Not according to Redflag where the F-35As were virtually invisible to other aircraft and ground.  The difference between a humming bird and a baseball really isn't noticable.  Now how about getting us a cite on your RCS claim.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Uncensored2008 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very serious problem.
> 
> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.
> 
> They got what they should've expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is two major aircraft that have fizzled due to over reliance on stealth. The RAH66 Comanche was goring to be the most advance rotary aircraft of all time. On paper it was a stealth killing machine that made Werewolves howl in terror. In real life it was a pig that was unstable and easy to detect. At least we kept the Apache fleet.
> 
> The big concern with the JSF is they want to mothball the Hornets, Raptors and other effective fighters.
Click to expand...


The RAH66 was not a big leap.  It was decided that the money was better spent on updating the AH-64 to the E configuration and on unmanned drones to do the same job.  It was just not needed.


----------



## Manonthestreet

GO back a few of my posts it compares it to F-22 which is true all apsect stealth......F-35 is 20 times larger or more than f-22


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> GO back a few of my posts it compares it to F-22 which is true all apsect stealth......F-35 is 20 times larger or more than f-22



Why, because you said so?  Now about that cite.  Otherwise, you are just talking out the south end still.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are full of crap.  I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be.   You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner.  The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits.  That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.
> 
> That is a fact.  I don't like it.  But it is a fact.  Trying to assert hangar queens as  "normal"  is horse poo.  Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life.  Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again?  How many years do you have as a Line Chief.  How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves.  News flash:  When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew.  Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day.  Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition.  All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.
> 
> Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted.  You would know that it's against regulation.  But it happens all the time.  If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two.  There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions.  There never is.  But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned.  Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around.  It's not Regulation, but it is normal.  Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted.  Just shows how far down the pike you really were.
> 
> A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war.  They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  And none.  And it doesn't matter.  You were the worker bee.  I knew your boss.  And, he was a damned good friend of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making.  I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well.  Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother.  The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable.  But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine.  However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF.  The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke.  He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do.  Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it.  I didn't start out in Maintenance.  I ended up there, that's all.  I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.
> 
> BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties.  I am in the second half of 60s, myself.  I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things.  Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job.  But they really can't.
> 
> I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones.  I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving.  I changed because I was damaged for life.  Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ.  Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again?  Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me.  But I was broken.  I still am.
> 
> So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit.  That ship has already sailed.
Click to expand...






I never said I served with him.  I said he and I were friends.  Yes, I am 70 years old.  I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes.  Many hundreds of times when I was younger.  Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead.  He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy.  He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff.   His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl/Westwall, lighten up a bit guys. That is some advice from an aged First Sergeant in his mid70's. Nasty is simply nasty and more so when personal. You guys have to much going for yourselves to get personal. Again, please, lighten up a bit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm game.  I have zero to either lose or gain from this nonsense.
Click to expand...





Likewise.  Lets discuss the issues and not each other.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again?  How many years do you have as a Line Chief.  How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves.  News flash:  When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew.  Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day.  Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition.  All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.
> 
> Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted.  You would know that it's against regulation.  But it happens all the time.  If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two.  There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions.  There never is.  But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned.  Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around.  It's not Regulation, but it is normal.  Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted.  Just shows how far down the pike you really were.
> 
> A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war.  They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  And none.  And it doesn't matter.  You were the worker bee.  I knew your boss.  And, he was a damned good friend of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making.  I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well.  Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother.  The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable.  But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine.  However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF.  The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke.  He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do.  Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it.  I didn't start out in Maintenance.  I ended up there, that's all.  I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.
> 
> BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties.  I am in the second half of 60s, myself.  I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things.  Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job.  But they really can't.
> 
> I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones.  I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving.  I changed because I was damaged for life.  Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ.  Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again?  Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me.  But I was broken.  I still am.
> 
> So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit.  That ship has already sailed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I served with him.  I said he and I were friends.  Yes, I am 70 years old.  I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes.  Many hundreds of times when I was younger.  Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead.  He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy.  He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff.   His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.
Click to expand...


The son doesn't speak for the Dad.  And neither do you.  To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A.  The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.  

Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> None.  And none.  And it doesn't matter.  You were the worker bee.  I knew your boss.  And, he was a damned good friend of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making.  I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well.  Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother.  The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable.  But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine.  However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF.  The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke.  He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do.  Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it.  I didn't start out in Maintenance.  I ended up there, that's all.  I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.
> 
> BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties.  I am in the second half of 60s, myself.  I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things.  Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job.  But they really can't.
> 
> I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones.  I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving.  I changed because I was damaged for life.  Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ.  Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again?  Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me.  But I was broken.  I still am.
> 
> So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit.  That ship has already sailed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I served with him.  I said he and I were friends.  Yes, I am 70 years old.  I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes.  Many hundreds of times when I was younger.  Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead.  He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy.  He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff.   His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The son doesn't speak for the Dad.  And neither do you.  To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A.  The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.
> 
> Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?
Click to expand...







How many of them have actually flown it though?  There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it.  There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft.  What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making.  I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well.  Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother.  The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable.  But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine.  However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF.  The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke.  He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do.  Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it.  I didn't start out in Maintenance.  I ended up there, that's all.  I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.
> 
> BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties.  I am in the second half of 60s, myself.  I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things.  Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job.  But they really can't.
> 
> I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones.  I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving.  I changed because I was damaged for life.  Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ.  Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again?  Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me.  But I was broken.  I still am.
> 
> So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit.  That ship has already sailed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I served with him.  I said he and I were friends.  Yes, I am 70 years old.  I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes.  Many hundreds of times when I was younger.  Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead.  He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy.  He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff.   His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The son doesn't speak for the Dad.  And neither do you.  To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A.  The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.
> 
> Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them have actually flown it though?  There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it.  There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft.  What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.
Click to expand...


More than you will admit.  And you don't have to fly it.  You can also go into Red Flag against it.  Until they turned on their IFF, not one single Fighter or Ground Installation could see it.  Not even the Controllers in their ECs.  They made them turn on their IFF so they could be seen.  Even then, not one single fighter or ground installation could fire on them.  In Green Flag, the F-35A was a complete success in taking out ground installations including CAS in 2015.  No losses.  In 2014, they used the F-16 and the A-10 for CAS and got slaughtered. Ground Installations and ManPads are just too deadly.  Facing the Russians, we would be facing systems either as good as our own or nearly so.  You have to see it to fire at it.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother.  The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable.  But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine.  However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF.  The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke.  He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do.  Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it.  I didn't start out in Maintenance.  I ended up there, that's all.  I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.
> 
> BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties.  I am in the second half of 60s, myself.  I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things.  Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job.  But they really can't.
> 
> I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones.  I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving.  I changed because I was damaged for life.  Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ.  Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again?  Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me.  But I was broken.  I still am.
> 
> So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit.  That ship has already sailed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I served with him.  I said he and I were friends.  Yes, I am 70 years old.  I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes.  Many hundreds of times when I was younger.  Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead.  He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy.  He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff.   His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The son doesn't speak for the Dad.  And neither do you.  To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A.  The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.
> 
> Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them have actually flown it though?  There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it.  There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft.  What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than you will admit.  And you don't have to fly it.  You can also go into Red Flag against it.  Until they turned on their IFF, not one single Fighter or Ground Installation could see it.  Not even the Controllers in their ECs.  They made them turn on their IFF so they could be seen.  Even then, not one single fighter or ground installation could fire on them.  In Green Flag, the F-35A was a complete success in taking out ground installations including CAS in 2015.  No losses.  In 2014, they used the F-16 and the A-10 for CAS and got slaughtered. Ground Installations and ManPads are just too deadly.  Facing the Russians, we would be facing systems either as good as our own or nearly so.  You have to see it to fire at it.
Click to expand...






What about the new F-15's and their new avionics suite?  Like I said, I don't place a lot of faith in reports from Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon likewise has a poor record for factual reporting.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do.  Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it.  I didn't start out in Maintenance.  I ended up there, that's all.  I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.
> 
> BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties.  I am in the second half of 60s, myself.  I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things.  Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job.  But they really can't.
> 
> I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones.  I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving.  I changed because I was damaged for life.  Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ.  Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again?  Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me.  But I was broken.  I still am.
> 
> So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit.  That ship has already sailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I served with him.  I said he and I were friends.  Yes, I am 70 years old.  I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes.  Many hundreds of times when I was younger.  Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead.  He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy.  He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff.   His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The son doesn't speak for the Dad.  And neither do you.  To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A.  The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.
> 
> Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them have actually flown it though?  There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it.  There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft.  What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than you will admit.  And you don't have to fly it.  You can also go into Red Flag against it.  Until they turned on their IFF, not one single Fighter or Ground Installation could see it.  Not even the Controllers in their ECs.  They made them turn on their IFF so they could be seen.  Even then, not one single fighter or ground installation could fire on them.  In Green Flag, the F-35A was a complete success in taking out ground installations including CAS in 2015.  No losses.  In 2014, they used the F-16 and the A-10 for CAS and got slaughtered. Ground Installations and ManPads are just too deadly.  Facing the Russians, we would be facing systems either as good as our own or nearly so.  You have to see it to fire at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the new F-15's and their new avionics suite?  Like I said, I don't place a lot of faith in reports from Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon likewise has a poor record for factual reporting.
Click to expand...


The new suite can see further than the enemy planes.  While this is good, the ground installations can see it just fine.  What the new suite does is keep the F-15 out of range for the enemy to attack and allow the F-35A to vector in the weapons fired by the F-15.  The F-15 will fire well beyond the range of the weapons affectiveness but not beyond the F-35 that is passively guiding onto the target.


----------



## Manonthestreet

* F-35 Helmet, Blind, Pilots, Night Flights | DoDBuzz*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> * F-35 Helmet, Blind, Pilots, Night Flights | DoDBuzz*



It's just a software setting problem.  Fairly easy to fix.  And it really only affects the C model that is yet to go into production.  Try again, monobreath.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> How many of them have actually flown it though?  There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it.  There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft.  What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.


A more interesting question would be how many of the critics of the plane have actually flown it?

It seems bizarre to me that all these pilots from different countries and different branches of service rave about this aircraft yet their opinions are dismissed, yet the opinions of people who have never even sat in the cockpit of an F-35 are taken as gold. All these pilots raving about how much the F-35 has dominated against Red Air in exercises must be part of some huge conspiracy to lie about actual F-35s performance, and whatever person with a blog writes from their living room is the more reasonable truth to pursue. Polls of pilots on what plane they would prefer to be in overwhelming lean towards F-35, yet some will instead lean on misconstrued article from an early model testing software limits on maneuvering against an F-16 as proof it cannot dogfight.

I'd invite you to take your "how many of them have actually flown it" and apply that to F-35 critics as well.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> GO back a few of my posts it compares it to F-22 which is true all apsect stealth......F-35 is 20 times larger or more than f-22



Referencing yourself as proof of something isn't proof. None of whatever war blogs you read really knows the RCS of an F-22 versus an F-35, it is all assumptions and guesses.

In fact the only statement made on the subject was by General Mike Hostage, who said the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22. I can go dig up the actual interview if you'd like, but I suspect you'd just disregard a statement by the ACC Commander and go with whatever guesswork is coming out of the blogspace.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Not referencing myself .....Reffing the planes known specs......duh


----------



## DrainBamage

They aren't known specs, they are estimates taken from vague references to golf balls and marbles. Can you provide a link to an F-35 spec sheet officially released by DoD or Lockheed Martin that has the plane's RCS? I'd be quite surprised if you could.

The only recent information we have from someone who'd know (as commander) is from a General who said F-35 is stealthier than F-22.


----------



## miketx

I really think it's a sign of how hapless many have become today. All the comments on this state of the art aircraft, with most of those commenting knowing absolutely NOTHING about it, other than what is placed for you to read by your media gods. I've wondered for years how we as a people have ever got past the bronze age, with all the fools we have loose.


----------



## DrainBamage

In addition to General Hostage, there is this excerpt from a pilot who has flown both the F-22 and F-35:

F-35 Lightning public debut shows the right stuff - AOPA


> During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its *nimble but less stealthy twin-engine **F-22** cousin* might not reveal the whole story. Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is *stealthier than any of its predecessors*. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”



So we have:

1. The commander of ACC saying the F-35 is stealthier than F-22
2. A pilot who has flown both F-22 and F-35 saying the F-35 is stealthier
3.  Red flag exercises where F-15Es get wiped out by F-35s because they can't find them
4. Pilots saying F-35s had to turn on their transponders because ground radars can't find them to run the exercises

By all recent accounts by people actually flying the plane or involved in the program stealth is not a problem with F-35, yet determined critics are repeatedly claiming the F-35 isn't stealthy, that it isn't all aspect stealth, and that there is some official spec sheet floating around that lists classified detailed data on F-35 RCS.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> But then it can't remain stealthy.  Hanging anything on it compromises its range and renders it back to a normal aircraft.  The second you hang a single external weapon on it, you have compromised its stealthiness which is what you claimed you wanted to keep.  So, which is it?  A highly expensive conventional weapons delivery platform or a highly expensive stealth aircraft?


F-35 can use external hardpoints in a CAS role since it doesn't need to be stealthy for CAS. Even in environments where USAF pulled A-10s out because they were getting shot down they were able to use F-16s instead since they do CAS from higher and faster. Obviously an F-35 can do the same CAS role as the F-16 with external stores except it can do it better since better sensors and doesn't need to waste external carriage on fuel tanks and targeting pod.

Sure the A-10 has an advantage over fast movers when flying really low using gun or rockets, but the majority of weapons deployed in CAS (by a huge margin) are: 1. JDAM  2. LGB, and this includes by A-10s which usually carry two of each. F-35 will be much better than an A-10 at putting JDAMs and LGBs on targets, as it will with SDBs when they are integrated in future weapons block. 

The LO characteristics come into play in SEAD/DEAD, air superiority, and strike missions since being able to get that much closer to a target without being tracked is clearly advantageous.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then it can't remain stealthy.  Hanging anything on it compromises its range and renders it back to a normal aircraft.  The second you hang a single external weapon on it, you have compromised its stealthiness which is what you claimed you wanted to keep.  So, which is it?  A highly expensive conventional weapons delivery platform or a highly expensive stealth aircraft?
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 can use external hardpoints in a CAS role since it doesn't need to be stealthy for CAS. Even in environments where USAF pulled A-10s out because they were getting shot down they were able to use F-16s instead since they do CAS from higher and faster. Obviously an F-35 can do the same CAS role as the F-16 with external stores except it can do it better since better sensors and doesn't need to waste external carriage on fuel tanks and targeting pod.
> 
> Sure the A-10 has an advantage over fast movers when flying really low using gun or rockets, but the majority of weapons deployed in CAS (by a huge margin) are: 1. JDAM  2. LGB, and this includes by A-10s which usually carry two of each. F-35 will be much better than an A-10 at putting JDAMs and LGBs on targets, as it will with SDBs when they are integrated in future weapons block.
> 
> The LO characteristics come into play in SEAD/DEAD, air superiority, and strike missions since being able to get that much closer to a target without being tracked is clearly advantageous.
Click to expand...







I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable.  Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg.  For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's.  In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth.  An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.

An A-10 can.  If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own.  EFFECTIVELY.   Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.  Aircraft break all of the time.  So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have.  In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say.   Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable.  Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg.  For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's.  In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth.  An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.


Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.

The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements. 




westwall said:


> An A-10 can.  If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own.  EFFECTIVELY.   Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.  Aircraft break all of the time.  So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have.  In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say.   Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.


Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.

Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable.  Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg.  For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's.  In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth.  An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.
> 
> The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> An A-10 can.  If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own.  EFFECTIVELY.   Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.  Aircraft break all of the time.  So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have.  In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say.   Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.
> 
> Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.
Click to expand...








A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.  

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.  
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.  

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.  

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable.  Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg.  For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's.  In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth.  An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.
> 
> The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> An A-10 can.  If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own.  EFFECTIVELY.   Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.  Aircraft break all of the time.  So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have.  In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say.   Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.
> 
> Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing.
> 
> The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
Click to expand...


You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely.  The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it.  The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons.  The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.  

You are missing the point here.  There are MANY CAS platforms out there.  One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops.  Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS.  But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors.  The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer.  It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops.  Where was the A-10?  Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range.  Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.  

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird.   To give you an idea.  The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff.  They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available.  The last time I checked, this is called cheating.   There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well.  If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong.  It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine.  I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974.  So they used the A-10 to kill the project.  

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened.  It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more.  I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable.  Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg.  For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's.  In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth.  An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.
> 
> The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> An A-10 can.  If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own.  EFFECTIVELY.   Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.  Aircraft break all of the time.  So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have.  In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say.   Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.
> 
> Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing.
> 
> The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely.  The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it.  The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons.  The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.
> 
> You are missing the point here.  There are MANY CAS platforms out there.  One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops.  Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS.  But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors.  The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer.  It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops.  Where was the A-10?  Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range.  Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.
> 
> The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird.   To give you an idea.  The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff.  They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available.  The last time I checked, this is called cheating.   There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well.  If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong.  It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine.  I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974.  So they used the A-10 to kill the project.
> 
> You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened.  It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more.  I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.
Click to expand...






Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft.  And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future.  It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable.  Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg.  For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's.  In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth.  An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.
> 
> The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> An A-10 can.  If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own.  EFFECTIVELY.   Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.  Aircraft break all of the time.  So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have.  In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say.   Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.
> 
> Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing.
> 
> The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely.  The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it.  The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons.  The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.
> 
> You are missing the point here.  There are MANY CAS platforms out there.  One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops.  Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS.  But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors.  The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer.  It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops.  Where was the A-10?  Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range.  Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.
> 
> The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird.   To give you an idea.  The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff.  They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available.  The last time I checked, this is called cheating.   There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well.  If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong.  It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine.  I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974.  So they used the A-10 to kill the project.
> 
> You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened.  It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more.  I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft.  And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future.  It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.
Click to expand...


As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc..  It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130.  What's left........Sandy.  And only if the first parameters are met.  That is extremely narrow in scope.  Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.


My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.



westwall said:


> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.


No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.




westwall said:


> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.


As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.
> 
> You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.
> 
> For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.
> 
> A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.
Click to expand...


What set him off again?  Is he delivering new info? Not.

As for the gun runs, about half or more of those pictures were from an AC-130 that is supposed to be from the A-10 Gun Camera.  They don't mention the AC-130 since it's usually tied in with a Spec Ops mission that we aren't supposed to know about.  Congress is also kept in the dark on those missions since Congress can't keep a secret.  Telephone, Telegraph and telecongressmen.


----------



## DrainBamage

The amount of misinformation some of these people lean on to form opinions about this plane is mind-boggling.

It won't be able to designate targets with it's own laser. Only four out of an entire squadron would be available. A pilot trying to look around at the ground below him while also flying a plane has awareness of where enemies are than a computer hilighting their locations and giving you information from all sensors at once. The plane that red air F-15s and ground radars can't see in exercises isn't stealthy.  Etc.


----------



## Manonthestreet

* The most expensive F-35 variant has hit another major snag that could take years to fix*


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.
> 
> You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.
> 
> For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.
> 
> A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.
Click to expand...

4 billion to keep how many planes in action.....now how much to keep same number of F-35s in action..........4 billion sounds rather cheap


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable.  Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg.  For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's.  In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth.  An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.
> 
> The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> An A-10 can.  If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own.  EFFECTIVELY.   Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.  Aircraft break all of the time.  So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have.  In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say.   Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.
> 
> Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing.
> 
> The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely.  The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it.  The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons.  The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.
> 
> You are missing the point here.  There are MANY CAS platforms out there.  One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops.  Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS.  But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors.  The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer.  It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops.  Where was the A-10?  Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range.  Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.
> 
> The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird.   To give you an idea.  The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff.  They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available.  The last time I checked, this is called cheating.   There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well.  If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong.  It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine.  I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974.  So they used the A-10 to kill the project.
> 
> You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened.  It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more.  I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft.  And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future.  It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc..  It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130.  What's left........Sandy.  And only if the first parameters are met.  That is extremely narrow in scope.  Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.
Click to expand...







Oh please.  The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft.  You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet?  Get real..


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.
> 
> You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.
> 
> For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.
> 
> A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.
Click to expand...







The same go's for the F-35 dude.  And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use.  You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests.  Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.

The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe.  It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.


Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.  



*The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*

*Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> The amount of misinformation some of these people lean on to form opinions about this plane is mind-boggling.
> 
> It won't be able to designate targets with it's own laser. Only four out of an entire squadron would be available. A pilot trying to look around at the ground below him while also flying a plane has awareness of where enemies are than a computer hilighting their locations and giving you information from all sensors at once. The plane that red air F-15s and ground radars can't see in exercises isn't stealthy.  Etc.








it is you peddling the propaganda dude.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.
> 
> You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.
> 
> For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.
> 
> A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same go's for the F-35 dude.  And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use.  You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests.  Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.
> 
> The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe.  It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.
> 
> 
> Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
> 
> *Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
Click to expand...

The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs.  The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.


----------



## westwall

Constructive Anarchy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.
> 
> You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.
> 
> For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.
> 
> A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same go's for the F-35 dude.  And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use.  You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests.  Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.
> 
> The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe.  It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.
> 
> 
> Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
> 
> *Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs.  The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.
Click to expand...





According to the propaganda that is true.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy

westwall said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.
> 
> You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.
> 
> For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.
> 
> A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same go's for the F-35 dude.  And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use.  You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests.  Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.
> 
> The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe.  It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.
> 
> 
> Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
> 
> *Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs.  The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the propaganda that is true.
Click to expand...

It's funny to listen to people talk as though the F-35 can somehow be stopped.  It isn't a future aircraft any more, it's here now, several hundred are being purchased by allied nations.  Not to mention that F-15s, F-16s, F-18s are all old technology now.  Their performance has been edged out by the latest Russian and Chinese designs.  The F-35 and F-22 will be the last manned combat aircraft.   The robots are taking over in another decade or so.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy

Harriers are also long overdue for replacement.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> The same go's for the F-35 dude.  And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use.


They are buying thousands of them, and they are comparable in cost to other modern fighter aircraft. Latest estimates have F-35A at about 85 million by 2019, an F-18 runs 78 million today.



westwall said:


> You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests.  Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern. The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe.  It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.


The planes have some commonality and (obviously) many areas not so much, but costs have been dropping rapidly and estimates by DoD, LH, and CBO all have costs continuing to drop going forward so stop claiming costs will remain where they are, that is incorrect.




westwall said:


> Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.


What do you mean "even" the CFR? Is this opinion piece by Janine Davidson carrying that much more weight because it is on a think tank's website?

Honest question: would you have thought so highly of CFR opinion pieces if they said A-10 should be retired? I doubt it. You're implying they carry weight only because you googled up an opinion piece that you agree with.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> it is you peddling the propaganda dude.





westwall said:


> According to the propaganda that is true.



I get the impression you're quite used to doing this when facts don't agree with your assumptions. Just wave it off as propaganda and you'll never be wrong, easy peasy!


----------



## westwall

Constructive Anarchy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.
> 
> You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.
> 
> For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.
> 
> A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same go's for the F-35 dude.  And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use.  You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests.  Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.
> 
> The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe.  It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.
> 
> 
> Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
> 
> *Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs.  The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the propaganda that is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny to listen to people talk as though the F-35 can somehow be stopped.  It isn't a future aircraft any more, it's here now, several hundred are being purchased by allied nations.  Not to mention that F-15s, F-16s, F-18s are all old technology now.  Their performance has been edged out by the latest Russian and Chinese designs.  The F-35 and F-22 will be the last manned combat aircraft.   The robots are taking over in another decade or so.
Click to expand...






Ahhh, yet another person thinking the day of the pilot is done.  They thought that way back in the 1960's.  1970's and finally came to their senses in the '80's.  There will always be a place for a manned aircraft.  Yes, UAV's have capabilities that are extraordinarily useful, but I foresee pilots still being in aircraft for decades to come.  I never claimed the F-35 was going to be stopped.  I have merely claimed that it isn't the best thing in the world as you all seem to think it is.  I feel it is a grossly over priced aircraft that is going to have severe problems with reliability and which will spend most of its time in the hangar instead of out performing the missions it was designed for.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> [I feel it is a grossly over priced aircraft that is going to have severe problems with reliability and which will spend most of its time in the hangar instead of out performing the missions it was designed for.


85 million for a 5th generation stealth aircraft is not grossly overpriced, as pointed out a new F-18 costs 78 million. Go look up how much Typhoon, PAK-FA, and Rafale cost.

Where do you get your reliability figures for F-35, it's still teething and under development but most early issues with availability have been related to software and have been addressed. What is truly astounding is over 60,000 hours without a crash, do you know how many F-16s crashed by the time they reached this stage?


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is you peddling the propaganda dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the propaganda that is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get the impression you're quite used to doing this when facts don't agree with your assumptions. Just wave it off as propaganda and you'll never be wrong, easy peasy!
Click to expand...







You are championing a aircraft who's costs have skyrocketed.  The claimed price for one is ridiculous.  That is a Lockheed claim (based on an estimate of the development and production costs of the program as a whole), and it bears nothing to reality.  Hence it is propaganda.  The actual cost is currently unknown as Lockheed is still in development to correct the numerous faults that still plague the aircraft.  Until ALL of those faults are rectified there can be no known flyaway cost. 

You are basing your arguments on estimates.  Estimates are not facts.  Until you learn the difference you will merely be a propagandist.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> You are championing a aircraft who's costs have skyrocketed.  The claimed price for one is ridiculous.  That is a Lockheed claim (based on an estimate of the development and production costs of the program as a whole), and it bears nothing to reality.  Hence it is propaganda.  The actual cost is currently unknown as Lockheed is still in development to correct the numerous faults that still plague the aircraft.  Until ALL of those faults are rectified there can be no known flyaway cost.


I'm not "championing" anything as I've got no horse in the race. I don't have to fly the plane, I don't work for LM. You're confusing disageeing with what you say and championing, it isn't a sports event where I'm cheering for the F-35 like a team.

The estimate isn't from Lockheed Martin, it is from a USAF General: F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: F-35A Prices Drop 5.5%

“When we do settle LRIP 10,” Bogdan continued, expect all three variants “to come down in price significantly…. probably somewhere on the order of six to seven percent.” By the time the plane enters Full Rate Production in 2019, Bogdan estimates the price will be down to $80-$85 million for an F-35A, $110 million for a F-35B, and a $96 million for an F-35C. That’s comparable to the (inflation-adjusted) prices of the older aircraft they replace, aircraft that lack the F-35’s stealth, advanced electronics, and artificial intelligence software.

The last few GAO reports have also noted trends in lower costs, they aren't Lockheed Martin either.



westwall said:


> You are basing your arguments on estimates.  Estimates are not facts.  Until you learn the difference you will merely be a propagandist.


Irony here, you consistently post incorrect things as fact. Over, and over, and over.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are championing a aircraft who's costs have skyrocketed.  The claimed price for one is ridiculous.  That is a Lockheed claim (based on an estimate of the development and production costs of the program as a whole), and it bears nothing to reality.  Hence it is propaganda.  The actual cost is currently unknown as Lockheed is still in development to correct the numerous faults that still plague the aircraft.  Until ALL of those faults are rectified there can be no known flyaway cost.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not "championing" anything as I've got no horse in the race. I don't have to fly the plane, I don't work for LM. You're confusing disageeing with what you say and championing, it isn't a sports event where I'm cheering for the F-35 like a team.
> 
> The estimate isn't from Lockheed Martin, it is from a USAF General: F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: F-35A Prices Drop 5.5%
> 
> “When we do settle LRIP 10,” Bogdan continued, expect all three variants “to come down in price significantly…. probably somewhere on the order of six to seven percent.” By the time the plane enters Full Rate Production in 2019, Bogdan estimates the price will be down to $80-$85 million for an F-35A, $110 million for a F-35B, and a $96 million for an F-35C. That’s comparable to the (inflation-adjusted) prices of the older aircraft they replace, aircraft that lack the F-35’s stealth, advanced electronics, and artificial intelligence software.
> 
> The last few GAO reports have also noted trends in lower costs, they aren't Lockheed Martin either.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your arguments on estimates.  Estimates are not facts.  Until you learn the difference you will merely be a propagandist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irony here, you consistently post incorrect things as fact. Over, and over, and over.
Click to expand...








Wrong.  You are posting LM estimates.  They are lying.  That is a fact.  Below is the best estimate of the cost per aircraft to come out, and it is from the people who actually pay the bills.  I'll believe them over LM any day of the week.


"There have been some wild assertions about F-35 unit cost recently.  See the Lockheed claims as reported in _Breaking Defense_, _Defense News_ and others that we should expect F-35A costs to be $85 million in 2019. None of these articles acknowledged that there are ways to measure F-35 unit cost other than by mouthing Lockheed and/or Joint Program Office prognostications for the future. Winslow Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, CDI at the Project of Government Oversight (POGO) claims these predictions do not conform with the actual procurement of costs reflected in the real numbers listed in the 2014 budget spending.

“Try instead, empirical data from as recently as last month from sources that typically work hand-in-glove with the Pentagon.” Wheeler wrote in his blog. “They would be the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.  *Their National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was squirted through the Senate and signed into law on December 26.  On questions like funding for high priority weapons, like the F-35, they virtually never act without consulting closely with the Pentagon, even if they don’t always cough up every penny requested.  For their 2014 bill, they did indeed take a few nicks out of the F-35 program, but the numbers, released in their “Joint Explanatory Statement” for the 2014 NDAA, give a more revealing view of F-35 unit costs than what Lockheed and some uninquisitive articles asserted at the end of 2013.”*

The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following.  (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014.  *The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft."*


How much the F-35 Really Cost? | Defense Update:


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Wrong.  You are posting LM estimates.  They are lying.  That is a fact.  Below is the best estimate of the cost per aircraft to come out, and it is from the people who actually pay the bills.  I'll believe them over LM any day of the week.


No, the estimates from DoD via the General in charge of the program. They are the ones negotiating the contracts with LM.

You've found a blog post from *over* *three years ago that relies on NDAA data for 2014,* and believe it estimates cost better than DoD and GAO office do today. Pretty funny.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You are posting LM estimates.  They are lying.  That is a fact.  Below is the best estimate of the cost per aircraft to come out, and it is from the people who actually pay the bills.  I'll believe them over LM any day of the week.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the estimates from DoD via the General in charge of the program. They are the ones negotiating the contracts with LM.
> 
> You've found a blog post from *over* *three years ago that relies on NDAA data for 2014,* and believe it estimates cost better than DoD and GAO office do today. Pretty funny.
Click to expand...







That's when your 85 million estimate comes from too or did you miss that part?  The fact remains that the NDAA information is PUBLISHED by the US government.  It is what they are PAYING for the aircraft.  You can yell and make silly accusations all you want, but i know how to do basic math.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I feel it is a grossly over priced aircraft that is going to have severe problems with reliability and which will spend most of its time in the hangar instead of out performing the missions it was designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> 85 million for a 5th generation stealth aircraft is not grossly overpriced, as pointed out a new F-18 costs 78 million. Go look up how much Typhoon, PAK-FA, and Rafale cost.
> 
> Where do you get your reliability figures for F-35, it's still teething and under development but most early issues with availability have been related to software and have been addressed. What is truly astounding is over 60,000 hours without a crash, do you know how many F-16s crashed by the time they reached this stage?
Click to expand...

If it ever gets that low it's because Trump put fear of losing it all in em plane is so late next design is alrdy being done up


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> That's when your 85 million estimate comes from too or did you miss that part?  The fact remains that the NDAA information is PUBLISHED by the US government.  It is what they are PAYING for the aircraft.  You can yell and make silly accusations all you want, but i know how to do basic math.


First off nobody is yelling. You seem to be unusually personaly vested in this given the bizarre accusations about yelling or propaganda. Calm down, we're just having a discussion.

NDAA information from 2014 that is taken as apples vs oranges with flyaway cost estimates. The cost estimates are from actual LRIP contracts that have been finalized between DoD and LM. The actual numbers from the LRIP 9 contract is for 57 aircraft are below. They aren't projections, they are from finalized contract flyaway costs.


42 F-35As (26 US, 16 foreign), the vanilla variant used by the Air Force and most foreign partners, at $102.1 million apiece — 5.5 percent less than the previous lot, LRIP 8, and 60 percent below the first fighters bought under LRIP 1.
13 F-35Bs (6 US, 7 foreign), the “jump jet” variant used by the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy, the most technologically challenging model, at $131.6 million apiece — 1.8 percent below LRIP 8.
2 F-35Cs (both US), the US Navy variant reinforced for tooth-rattling aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings,  at $132.2 million apiece — a 2.5 _increase_ over LRIP 8, but that’s because the Navy slashed its buy in half (from 4 planes to 2), losing economies of scale.
Even at today's prices initial low rate prices an F-35A at 102 million is not overpriced for the capabilities it provides. Estimates for 6% lower on LRIP-10, we'll know when that gets finalized as well, much better than some blog post from over three years ago.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's when your 85 million estimate comes from too or did you miss that part?  The fact remains that the NDAA information is PUBLISHED by the US government.  It is what they are PAYING for the aircraft.  You can yell and make silly accusations all you want, but i know how to do basic math.
> 
> 
> 
> First off nobody is yelling. You seem to be unusually personaly vested in this given the bizarre accusations about yelling or propaganda. Calm down, we're just having a discussion.
> 
> NDAA information from 2014 that is taken as apples vs oranges with flyaway cost estimates. The cost estimates are from actual LRIP contracts that have been finalized between DoD and LM. The actual numbers from the LRIP 9 contract is for 57 aircraft are below. They aren't projections, they are from finalized contract flyaway costs.
> 
> 
> 42 F-35As (26 US, 16 foreign), the vanilla variant used by the Air Force and most foreign partners, at $102.1 million apiece — 5.5 percent less than the previous lot, LRIP 8, and 60 percent below the first fighters bought under LRIP 1.
> 13 F-35Bs (6 US, 7 foreign), the “jump jet” variant used by the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy, the most technologically challenging model, at $131.6 million apiece — 1.8 percent below LRIP 8.
> 2 F-35Cs (both US), the US Navy variant reinforced for tooth-rattling aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings,  at $132.2 million apiece — a 2.5 _increase_ over LRIP 8, but that’s because the Navy slashed its buy in half (from 4 planes to 2), losing economies of scale.
> Even at today's prices initial low rate prices an F-35A at 102 million is not overpriced for the capabilities it provides. Estimates for 6% lower on LRIP-10, we'll know when that gets finalized as well, much better than some blog post from over three years ago.
Click to expand...










Why didn't you post the last paragraph?  That statement kills whatever estimate they may have trotted out.  


"Will the Air Force buy its full complement? Harrison was skeptical.

“I don’t think it’s plausible that we’ll actually buy that full amount in the long run, but they don’t need to change their plans right now, they don’t need to scare the foreign partners by signaling that right now, it wouldn’t make sense to do it now,” he says. “You don’t have to make that decision on the total quantity, you don’t even have to make the decision on the full-rate production, until four or five years from now. So you can wait four or five years, more of the foreign partners will get deeply invested in the program, and _then_ they can scare them.”


----------



## DrainBamage

I have no idea where that last paragraph came from, so no I didn't quote it. I quoted data from LRIP 9.

Is this yet another blog you're fond of?


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> I have no idea where that last paragraph came from, so no I didn't quote it. I quoted data from LRIP 9.
> 
> Is this yet another blog you're fond of?







It came from your link.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.
> 
> The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.
> 
> 
> Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.
> 
> Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing.
> 
> The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely.  The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it.  The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons.  The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.
> 
> You are missing the point here.  There are MANY CAS platforms out there.  One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops.  Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS.  But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors.  The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer.  It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops.  Where was the A-10?  Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range.  Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.
> 
> The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird.   To give you an idea.  The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff.  They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available.  The last time I checked, this is called cheating.   There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well.  If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong.  It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine.  I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974.  So they used the A-10 to kill the project.
> 
> You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened.  It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more.  I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft.  And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future.  It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc..  It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130.  What's left........Sandy.  And only if the first parameters are met.  That is extremely narrow in scope.  Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft.  You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet?  Get real..
Click to expand...


You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have?  UCMeICU comes into play.

The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground.  NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel.  When  the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad.  Welcome to Afghanistan.  The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range.  Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K.  Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again?  You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions.  Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news.  Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.  Not all truth is on the Internet only.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per.  Your point?  Insurgents hide.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet.  It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet.  The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft.  If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.
> 
> The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys.  By himself.  Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War.  The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out.  The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
> The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in.  That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire.  Figure 4 seconds of firing.
> 
> The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds.  Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.
> 
> In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic.  The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun.  The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.
> 
> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely.  The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it.  The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons.  The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.
> 
> You are missing the point here.  There are MANY CAS platforms out there.  One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops.  Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS.  But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors.  The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer.  It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops.  Where was the A-10?  Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range.  Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.
> 
> The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird.   To give you an idea.  The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff.  They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available.  The last time I checked, this is called cheating.   There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well.  If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong.  It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine.  I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974.  So they used the A-10 to kill the project.
> 
> You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened.  It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more.  I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft.  And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future.  It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc..  It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130.  What's left........Sandy.  And only if the first parameters are met.  That is extremely narrow in scope.  Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft.  You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet?  Get real..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have?  UCMeICU comes into play.
> 
> The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground.  NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel.  When  the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad.  Welcome to Afghanistan.  The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range.  Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K.  Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again?  You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions.  Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news.  Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.  Not all truth is on the Internet only.
Click to expand...







The troops on the ground love the A-10.  The top brass hate it.  Guess who I'm going to listen to.  The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely.  The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it.  The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons.  The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.
> 
> You are missing the point here.  There are MANY CAS platforms out there.  One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops.  Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS.  But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors.  The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer.  It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops.  Where was the A-10?  Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range.  Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.
> 
> The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird.   To give you an idea.  The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff.  They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available.  The last time I checked, this is called cheating.   There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well.  If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong.  It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine.  I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974.  So they used the A-10 to kill the project.
> 
> You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened.  It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more.  I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft.  And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future.  It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc..  It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130.  What's left........Sandy.  And only if the first parameters are met.  That is extremely narrow in scope.  Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft.  You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet?  Get real..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have?  UCMeICU comes into play.
> 
> The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground.  NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel.  When  the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad.  Welcome to Afghanistan.  The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range.  Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K.  Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again?  You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions.  Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news.  Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.  Not all truth is on the Internet only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops on the ground love the A-10.  The top brass hate it.  Guess who I'm going to listen to.  The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.
Click to expand...


Last time I checked, the military wasn't run by an E-2 Grunt.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> The troops on the ground love the A-10.  The top brass hate it.  Guess who I'm going to listen to.


The troops love whoever drops the JDAM on the bad guys over the ridge, and most of the time it isn't an A-10.



westwall said:


> The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.


Those "assholes" usually clocked their time in combat as well, I'm baffled at your bizarre hatred for people with successful military careers.

Current theater commander is General Nicholson, he has a bronze star with "V" from combat. I forget the name of the top USAF out there but if it's still same one I read about he's decorated F-15 combat pilot. Those guy put their lives on the line during their career same as the grunts, yet you disparage them for the sin of rising up through the ranks.

What have you done Westwall?


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.


I'm not sure how you're figuring this. An F-35 will carry 8 SDBs internal, and in a CAS role probably at least 4 more GBU-12s under the wings. It can hit plenty of targets, and it can hit find them and target them faster  than an A-10.



westwall said:


> what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters


The F-35s performance in Red Flag and Green Flag show otherwise, even with current limited software and weapons it has far outperformed availabel 4th gen fighters.



westwall said:


> An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed.  If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.


I'm curious if you're just making this up or had someone tell you this. What is the maximum speed planes can use laser designators on LANTIRN/LITENING/SNIPER pods, sure you have this information since you're spouting off details about capabilities of laser targeting, right?


----------



## williepete

DrainBamage said:


> What have you done Westwall?



Same question to you. What squadrons did you fly with? How much CAS experience do you have, ground or air?


----------



## DrainBamage

I was USAF but not a pilot, and I'm not the one disparaging others with combat experience just because they made rank.


----------



## williepete

DrainBamage said:


> I was USAF but not a pilot, and I'm not the one disparaging others with combat experience just because they made rank.



AFSC?


----------



## DrainBamage

Irrelevant. When I start criticizing others with combat experience just because they made rank I'll be sure to PM you my resume.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft.  And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future.  It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc..  It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130.  What's left........Sandy.  And only if the first parameters are met.  That is extremely narrow in scope.  Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft.  You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet?  Get real..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have?  UCMeICU comes into play.
> 
> The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground.  NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel.  When  the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad.  Welcome to Afghanistan.  The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range.  Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K.  Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again?  You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions.  Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news.  Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.  Not all truth is on the Internet only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops on the ground love the A-10.  The top brass hate it.  Guess who I'm going to listen to.  The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, the military wasn't run by an E-2 Grunt.
Click to expand...







You are correct.  But they're the ones who get to die so that the generals you are so proud of can get their cushy job.  I'll take the word of the grunts on the ground over a staff REMF any day of the week.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The troops on the ground love the A-10.  The top brass hate it.  Guess who I'm going to listen to.
> 
> 
> 
> The troops love whoever drops the JDAM on the bad guys over the ridge, and most of the time it isn't an A-10.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those "assholes" usually clocked their time in combat as well, I'm baffled at your bizarre hatred for people with successful military careers.
> 
> Current theater commander is General Nicholson, he has a bronze star with "V" from combat. I forget the name of the top USAF out there but if it's still same one I read about he's decorated F-15 combat pilot. Those guy put their lives on the line during their career same as the grunts, yet you disparage them for the sin of rising up through the ranks.
> 
> What have you done Westwall?
Click to expand...









A Bronze Star with a V is fine medal.  Look up Hub Zemke some day.  He was a good friend of mine.  I learned my healthy distaste for the brass from him.






https://www.amazon.com/Zemkes-Wolf-Pack-Hub-Zemke/dp/051757330X&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> Irrelevant. When I start criticizing others with combat experience just because they made rank I'll be sure to PM you my resume.







You made it relevant by asking for my bonafides.  That's how the real world works.


----------



## williepete

DrainBamage said:


> Irrelevant. When I start criticizing others with combat experience just because they made rank I'll be sure to PM you my resume.



Cool. No biggie. Just trying to get a feel for your background. You seem to be quite passionate about CAS. It's a subject I'm interested in. Dabbled in it on the ground and in the air. An interesting subject as we enter this new higher tech capability in supporting the grunts.

EDIT:  Don't get the making rank part of the conversation. The USAF was rarely good at picking who to promote. Their blind pigs found an acorn every now and then but that was more exception than the rule. The good sticks got sick of the chicken shit and got out to where the money was flying airline or corporate.


----------



## DrainBamage

williepete said:


> EDIT:  Don't get the making rank part of the conversation.


I don't either. There are good officers and shitty officers, but WestWall painting with such a broad brush calling anyone with a star on their soldier an "asshole" is pretty juvenile.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Don't get the making rank part of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. There are good officers and shitty officers, but WestWall painting with such a broad brush calling anyone with a star on their soldier an "asshole" is pretty juvenile.
Click to expand...







It comes from long experience with the type.  I have known two Generals that I truly respected.  Bill Strand and Robin Olds.  I am sure there were many others but I never met them.  Met lots of idiots though.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Don't get the making rank part of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. There are good officers and shitty officers, but WestWall painting with such a broad brush calling anyone with a star on their soldier an "asshole" is pretty juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from long experience with the type.  I have known two Generals that I truly respected.  Bill Strand and Robin Olds.  I am sure there were many others but I never met them.  Met lots of idiots though.
Click to expand...


Either you are just name dropping or you are lying.  Either way, in order to clear this up you need to drop some REAL bonafides and not just drop names.

What was YOUR rank in the USAF?   Not someone elses that you are name dropping.

Your most important Duty Stations and jobs.  Not someone elses that you are name dropping.

You want to claim to be an expert?  Here is your chance to prove it. 

AS for me, I will freely admit that most of my Military was Administrative and watched the action AFTER it happened but planned for it to happen before.  Nothing glamorous about it.  WE all can't be heroes.  I had my chance to be a hero and turned it down.  Real Heroes are born not made.  I won't go any further than that.

But it's about time to hear about your real story.  Mine is quite boring.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Don't get the making rank part of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. There are good officers and shitty officers, but WestWall painting with such a broad brush calling anyone with a star on their soldier an "asshole" is pretty juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from long experience with the type.  I have known two Generals that I truly respected.  Bill Strand and Robin Olds.  I am sure there were many others but I never met them.  Met lots of idiots though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you are just name dropping or you are lying.  Either way, in order to clear this up you need to drop some REAL bonafides and not just drop names.
> 
> What was YOUR rank in the USAF?   Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> Your most important Duty Stations and jobs.  Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> You want to claim to be an expert?  Here is your chance to prove it.
> 
> AS for me, I will freely admit that most of my Military was Administrative and watched the action AFTER it happened but planned for it to happen before.  Nothing glamorous about it.  WE all can't be heroes.  I had my chance to be a hero and turned it down.  Real Heroes are born not made.  I won't go any further than that.
> 
> But it's about time to hear about your real story.  Mine is quite boring.
Click to expand...






I met and was friendly with Robin through Hub who Robin feels saved his life during WWII.  I met Bill (who sadly passed away just a little over a year ago, he is buried at the Churchill County Cemetery in Fallon) over 35 years ago when he was the CO at Nellis.  And I was introduced to him by Robin.  Bill lived just a few miles from me down in Minden.

I'm not military.  Never claimed I was.  But I worked with the USAF at Wheelus on multiple occasions and spent many a night up at Stead when Zemke was the CO there.  He and I were friends for over 20 years and his son and I are still friends, I'm only a few years older than Hub Jr.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Don't get the making rank part of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. There are good officers and shitty officers, but WestWall painting with such a broad brush calling anyone with a star on their soldier an "asshole" is pretty juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from long experience with the type.  I have known two Generals that I truly respected.  Bill Strand and Robin Olds.  I am sure there were many others but I never met them.  Met lots of idiots though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you are just name dropping or you are lying.  Either way, in order to clear this up you need to drop some REAL bonafides and not just drop names.
> 
> What was YOUR rank in the USAF?   Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> Your most important Duty Stations and jobs.  Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> You want to claim to be an expert?  Here is your chance to prove it.
> 
> AS for me, I will freely admit that most of my Military was Administrative and watched the action AFTER it happened but planned for it to happen before.  Nothing glamorous about it.  WE all can't be heroes.  I had my chance to be a hero and turned it down.  Real Heroes are born not made.  I won't go any further than that.
> 
> But it's about time to hear about your real story.  Mine is quite boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met and was friendly with Robin through Hub who Robin feels saved his life during WWII.  I met Bill (who sadly passed away just a little over a year ago, he is buried at the Churchill County Cemetery in Fallon) over 35 years ago when he was the CO at Nellis.  And I was introduced to him by Robin.  Bill lived just a few miles from me down in Minden.
> 
> I'm not military.  Never claimed I was.  But I worked with the USAF at Wheelus on multiple occasions and spent many a night up at Stead when Zemke was the CO there.  He and I were friends for over 20 years and his son and I are still friends, I'm only a few years older than Hub Jr.
Click to expand...


So you stayed in a Motel 6 near an AF base.  Makes you an expert.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Don't get the making rank part of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. There are good officers and shitty officers, but WestWall painting with such a broad brush calling anyone with a star on their soldier an "asshole" is pretty juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from long experience with the type.  I have known two Generals that I truly respected.  Bill Strand and Robin Olds.  I am sure there were many others but I never met them.  Met lots of idiots though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you are just name dropping or you are lying.  Either way, in order to clear this up you need to drop some REAL bonafides and not just drop names.
> 
> What was YOUR rank in the USAF?   Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> Your most important Duty Stations and jobs.  Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> You want to claim to be an expert?  Here is your chance to prove it.
> 
> AS for me, I will freely admit that most of my Military was Administrative and watched the action AFTER it happened but planned for it to happen before.  Nothing glamorous about it.  WE all can't be heroes.  I had my chance to be a hero and turned it down.  Real Heroes are born not made.  I won't go any further than that.
> 
> But it's about time to hear about your real story.  Mine is quite boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met and was friendly with Robin through Hub who Robin feels saved his life during WWII.  I met Bill (who sadly passed away just a little over a year ago, he is buried at the Churchill County Cemetery in Fallon) over 35 years ago when he was the CO at Nellis.  And I was introduced to him by Robin.  Bill lived just a few miles from me down in Minden.
> 
> I'm not military.  Never claimed I was.  But I worked with the USAF at Wheelus on multiple occasions and spent many a night up at Stead when Zemke was the CO there.  He and I were friends for over 20 years and his son and I are still friends, I'm only a few years older than Hub Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you stayed in a Motel 6 near an AF base.  Makes you an expert.
Click to expand...








  If that's the best you can come up with you had best go home junior.  I never claimed to be an expert.  There are many people far more informed than I.  I have never denied that.  However, this OP is a discussion about whether the F-35 is too costly for what it delivers.  It is my opinion that it is.  I have worked on many AF bases over my career, including Vandenberg when I was part of the LANDSAT cadre.  I have interacted with many levels of AF brass.  Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.  

That is my personal experience.  I never claimed it was true throughout the service.


----------



## williepete

westwall said:


> Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.



Getting off topic here but this is near and dear to my heart. The USAF eats its young and drives off the best talent. The Machiavellian types get the lay of the land early and start early at feathering their own nest at the expense of everyone else. The dedicated, mission oriented team players figure out late what is going on. They tend to leave and take their talents with them. What is left is a hierarchy that promotes more of the same. A true pity. I'm still in contact with active duty USAF pilots. Same old story but a bit lower morale given the last 8 years. The tragedy has always been that it would be so easy to have great morale which equals great performance.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. There are good officers and shitty officers, but WestWall painting with such a broad brush calling anyone with a star on their soldier an "asshole" is pretty juvenile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from long experience with the type.  I have known two Generals that I truly respected.  Bill Strand and Robin Olds.  I am sure there were many others but I never met them.  Met lots of idiots though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you are just name dropping or you are lying.  Either way, in order to clear this up you need to drop some REAL bonafides and not just drop names.
> 
> What was YOUR rank in the USAF?   Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> Your most important Duty Stations and jobs.  Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> You want to claim to be an expert?  Here is your chance to prove it.
> 
> AS for me, I will freely admit that most of my Military was Administrative and watched the action AFTER it happened but planned for it to happen before.  Nothing glamorous about it.  WE all can't be heroes.  I had my chance to be a hero and turned it down.  Real Heroes are born not made.  I won't go any further than that.
> 
> But it's about time to hear about your real story.  Mine is quite boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met and was friendly with Robin through Hub who Robin feels saved his life during WWII.  I met Bill (who sadly passed away just a little over a year ago, he is buried at the Churchill County Cemetery in Fallon) over 35 years ago when he was the CO at Nellis.  And I was introduced to him by Robin.  Bill lived just a few miles from me down in Minden.
> 
> I'm not military.  Never claimed I was.  But I worked with the USAF at Wheelus on multiple occasions and spent many a night up at Stead when Zemke was the CO there.  He and I were friends for over 20 years and his son and I are still friends, I'm only a few years older than Hub Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you stayed in a Motel 6 near an AF base.  Makes you an expert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the best you can come up with you had best go home junior.  I never claimed to be an expert.  There are many people far more informed than I.  I have never denied that.  However, this OP is a discussion about whether the F-35 is too costly for what it delivers.  It is my opinion that it is.  I have worked on many AF bases over my career, including Vandenberg when I was part of the LANDSAT cadre.  I have interacted with many levels of AF brass.  Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> That is my personal experience.  I never claimed it was true throughout the service.
Click to expand...


Junior?  Why thank you for the compliment.  I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I didn't "KNOW" some of the greats, I served with them.  And I have never spent a single night in Motel 6.

Does that make me an expert?  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base.  I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System.  I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16.  I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational.  Our F-15As had a 33% generation record.  We found that unacceptable.  But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds.  It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate.  It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem.  They tied everything through the Radar.  You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter.  The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well.  WE were in bad need of better engines.  That was cured in the C model.  Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.

I suspect that the F-35A is going through the same thing.  It went operational last year.  Give it the next 5 for ironing out and it's time frame will be about what the F-15 was.  You are demanding way too much from a new weapons system.  Remember, I have been there, you haven't.  And I still haven't spent one single night in a Motel 6.


----------



## westwall

williepete said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting off topic here but this is near and dear to my heart. The USAF eats its young and drives off the best talent. The Machiavellian types get the lay of the land early and start early at feathering their own nest at the expense of everyone else. The dedicated, mission oriented team players figure out late what is going on. They tend to leave and take their talents with them. What is left is a hierarchy that promotes more of the same. A true pity. I'm still in contact with active duty USAF pilots. Same old story but a bit lower morale given the last 8 years. The tragedy has always been that it would be so easy to have great morale which equals great performance.
Click to expand...






Absolutely correct.  The last eight years have been a disaster for the USAF.  Hub Jr. still gives talks at the Academy and he is dismayed at how the leadership there has collapsed.  He truly feels that obama was trying to destroy that institution.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It comes from long experience with the type.  I have known two Generals that I truly respected.  Bill Strand and Robin Olds.  I am sure there were many others but I never met them.  Met lots of idiots though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you are just name dropping or you are lying.  Either way, in order to clear this up you need to drop some REAL bonafides and not just drop names.
> 
> What was YOUR rank in the USAF?   Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> Your most important Duty Stations and jobs.  Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> You want to claim to be an expert?  Here is your chance to prove it.
> 
> AS for me, I will freely admit that most of my Military was Administrative and watched the action AFTER it happened but planned for it to happen before.  Nothing glamorous about it.  WE all can't be heroes.  I had my chance to be a hero and turned it down.  Real Heroes are born not made.  I won't go any further than that.
> 
> But it's about time to hear about your real story.  Mine is quite boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met and was friendly with Robin through Hub who Robin feels saved his life during WWII.  I met Bill (who sadly passed away just a little over a year ago, he is buried at the Churchill County Cemetery in Fallon) over 35 years ago when he was the CO at Nellis.  And I was introduced to him by Robin.  Bill lived just a few miles from me down in Minden.
> 
> I'm not military.  Never claimed I was.  But I worked with the USAF at Wheelus on multiple occasions and spent many a night up at Stead when Zemke was the CO there.  He and I were friends for over 20 years and his son and I are still friends, I'm only a few years older than Hub Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you stayed in a Motel 6 near an AF base.  Makes you an expert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the best you can come up with you had best go home junior.  I never claimed to be an expert.  There are many people far more informed than I.  I have never denied that.  However, this OP is a discussion about whether the F-35 is too costly for what it delivers.  It is my opinion that it is.  I have worked on many AF bases over my career, including Vandenberg when I was part of the LANDSAT cadre.  I have interacted with many levels of AF brass.  Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> That is my personal experience.  I never claimed it was true throughout the service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior?  Why thank you for the compliment.  I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I didn't "KNOW" some of the greats, I served with them.  And I have never spent a single night in Motel 6.
> 
> Does that make me an expert?  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base.  I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System.  I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16.  I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational.  Our F-15As had a 33% generation record.  We found that unacceptable.  But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds.  It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate.  It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem.  They tied everything through the Radar.  You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter.  The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well.  WE were in bad need of better engines.  That was cured in the C model.  Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.
> 
> I suspect that the F-35A is going through the same thing.  It went operational last year.  Give it the next 5 for ironing out and it's time frame will be about what the F-15 was.  You are demanding way too much from a new weapons system.  Remember, I have been there, you haven't.  And I still haven't spent one single night in a Motel 6.
Click to expand...







Yeah.  Great.  You were a staff wonk.  Congrats.  I have spent many a night at a Motel 6.  In some places I have been that was the absolute best available.  I would hazard a guess that I have had more bullets shot at me than you as well.  Doesn't make me an expert gunfighter but I'm better at it than you as I have actually seen the elephant while by your own admission you ran away from the critter.

Do you fly?  I do.  I would hazard a guess that willipete does too based on his verbiage.  Now, if you want to keep your tiny dick out of this discussion I am happy to accommodate you in a discussion of the facts.  But a staff wonk has as much practical experience at warfighting as my daughter does.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you are just name dropping or you are lying.  Either way, in order to clear this up you need to drop some REAL bonafides and not just drop names.
> 
> What was YOUR rank in the USAF?   Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> Your most important Duty Stations and jobs.  Not someone elses that you are name dropping.
> 
> You want to claim to be an expert?  Here is your chance to prove it.
> 
> AS for me, I will freely admit that most of my Military was Administrative and watched the action AFTER it happened but planned for it to happen before.  Nothing glamorous about it.  WE all can't be heroes.  I had my chance to be a hero and turned it down.  Real Heroes are born not made.  I won't go any further than that.
> 
> But it's about time to hear about your real story.  Mine is quite boring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met and was friendly with Robin through Hub who Robin feels saved his life during WWII.  I met Bill (who sadly passed away just a little over a year ago, he is buried at the Churchill County Cemetery in Fallon) over 35 years ago when he was the CO at Nellis.  And I was introduced to him by Robin.  Bill lived just a few miles from me down in Minden.
> 
> I'm not military.  Never claimed I was.  But I worked with the USAF at Wheelus on multiple occasions and spent many a night up at Stead when Zemke was the CO there.  He and I were friends for over 20 years and his son and I are still friends, I'm only a few years older than Hub Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you stayed in a Motel 6 near an AF base.  Makes you an expert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the best you can come up with you had best go home junior.  I never claimed to be an expert.  There are many people far more informed than I.  I have never denied that.  However, this OP is a discussion about whether the F-35 is too costly for what it delivers.  It is my opinion that it is.  I have worked on many AF bases over my career, including Vandenberg when I was part of the LANDSAT cadre.  I have interacted with many levels of AF brass.  Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> That is my personal experience.  I never claimed it was true throughout the service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior?  Why thank you for the compliment.  I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I didn't "KNOW" some of the greats, I served with them.  And I have never spent a single night in Motel 6.
> 
> Does that make me an expert?  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base.  I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System.  I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16.  I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational.  Our F-15As had a 33% generation record.  We found that unacceptable.  But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds.  It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate.  It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem.  They tied everything through the Radar.  You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter.  The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well.  WE were in bad need of better engines.  That was cured in the C model.  Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.
> 
> I suspect that the F-35A is going through the same thing.  It went operational last year.  Give it the next 5 for ironing out and it's time frame will be about what the F-15 was.  You are demanding way too much from a new weapons system.  Remember, I have been there, you haven't.  And I still haven't spent one single night in a Motel 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Great.  You were a staff wonk.  Congrats.  I have spent many a night at a Motel 6.  In some places I have been that was the absolute best available.  I would hazard a guess that I have had more bullets shot at me than you as well.  Doesn't make me an expert gunfighter but I'm better at it than you as I have actually seen the elephant while by your own admission you ran away from the critter.
> 
> Do you fly?  I do.  I would hazard a guess that willipete does too based on his verbiage.  Now, if you want to keep your tiny dick out of this discussion I am happy to accommodate you in a discussion of the facts.  But a staff wonk has as much practical experience at warfighting as my daughter does.
Click to expand...


YOu need a better neighborhood if you are shot so many times.  Or move to one where they are poorer shots.

And that must be one bad Daughter you have.  Is she as opinionated as you are and just make up crap as she goes?


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I met and was friendly with Robin through Hub who Robin feels saved his life during WWII.  I met Bill (who sadly passed away just a little over a year ago, he is buried at the Churchill County Cemetery in Fallon) over 35 years ago when he was the CO at Nellis.  And I was introduced to him by Robin.  Bill lived just a few miles from me down in Minden.
> 
> I'm not military.  Never claimed I was.  But I worked with the USAF at Wheelus on multiple occasions and spent many a night up at Stead when Zemke was the CO there.  He and I were friends for over 20 years and his son and I are still friends, I'm only a few years older than Hub Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you stayed in a Motel 6 near an AF base.  Makes you an expert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the best you can come up with you had best go home junior.  I never claimed to be an expert.  There are many people far more informed than I.  I have never denied that.  However, this OP is a discussion about whether the F-35 is too costly for what it delivers.  It is my opinion that it is.  I have worked on many AF bases over my career, including Vandenberg when I was part of the LANDSAT cadre.  I have interacted with many levels of AF brass.  Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> That is my personal experience.  I never claimed it was true throughout the service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior?  Why thank you for the compliment.  I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I didn't "KNOW" some of the greats, I served with them.  And I have never spent a single night in Motel 6.
> 
> Does that make me an expert?  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base.  I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System.  I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16.  I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational.  Our F-15As had a 33% generation record.  We found that unacceptable.  But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds.  It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate.  It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem.  They tied everything through the Radar.  You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter.  The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well.  WE were in bad need of better engines.  That was cured in the C model.  Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.
> 
> I suspect that the F-35A is going through the same thing.  It went operational last year.  Give it the next 5 for ironing out and it's time frame will be about what the F-15 was.  You are demanding way too much from a new weapons system.  Remember, I have been there, you haven't.  And I still haven't spent one single night in a Motel 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Great.  You were a staff wonk.  Congrats.  I have spent many a night at a Motel 6.  In some places I have been that was the absolute best available.  I would hazard a guess that I have had more bullets shot at me than you as well.  Doesn't make me an expert gunfighter but I'm better at it than you as I have actually seen the elephant while by your own admission you ran away from the critter.
> 
> Do you fly?  I do.  I would hazard a guess that willipete does too based on his verbiage.  Now, if you want to keep your tiny dick out of this discussion I am happy to accommodate you in a discussion of the facts.  But a staff wonk has as much practical experience at warfighting as my daughter does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu need a better neighborhood if you are shot so many times.  Or move to one where they are poorer shots.
> 
> And that must be one bad Daughter you have.  Is she as opinionated as you are and just make up crap as she goes?
Click to expand...




It's part of the cost of doing business in the third world which is where most of my work was.  And I'm still here so clearly their aim wasn't good enough.  As far as my daughter go's she's far more competent than you at most things I would hazard.  She's only 10 so has a long ways to go yet, but I figure in 10 more years she will be waaaay ahead of me and that will be just fine with me!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you stayed in a Motel 6 near an AF base.  Makes you an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the best you can come up with you had best go home junior.  I never claimed to be an expert.  There are many people far more informed than I.  I have never denied that.  However, this OP is a discussion about whether the F-35 is too costly for what it delivers.  It is my opinion that it is.  I have worked on many AF bases over my career, including Vandenberg when I was part of the LANDSAT cadre.  I have interacted with many levels of AF brass.  Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> That is my personal experience.  I never claimed it was true throughout the service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior?  Why thank you for the compliment.  I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I didn't "KNOW" some of the greats, I served with them.  And I have never spent a single night in Motel 6.
> 
> Does that make me an expert?  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base.  I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System.  I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16.  I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational.  Our F-15As had a 33% generation record.  We found that unacceptable.  But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds.  It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate.  It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem.  They tied everything through the Radar.  You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter.  The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well.  WE were in bad need of better engines.  That was cured in the C model.  Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.
> 
> I suspect that the F-35A is going through the same thing.  It went operational last year.  Give it the next 5 for ironing out and it's time frame will be about what the F-15 was.  You are demanding way too much from a new weapons system.  Remember, I have been there, you haven't.  And I still haven't spent one single night in a Motel 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Great.  You were a staff wonk.  Congrats.  I have spent many a night at a Motel 6.  In some places I have been that was the absolute best available.  I would hazard a guess that I have had more bullets shot at me than you as well.  Doesn't make me an expert gunfighter but I'm better at it than you as I have actually seen the elephant while by your own admission you ran away from the critter.
> 
> Do you fly?  I do.  I would hazard a guess that willipete does too based on his verbiage.  Now, if you want to keep your tiny dick out of this discussion I am happy to accommodate you in a discussion of the facts.  But a staff wonk has as much practical experience at warfighting as my daughter does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu need a better neighborhood if you are shot so many times.  Or move to one where they are poorer shots.
> 
> And that must be one bad Daughter you have.  Is she as opinionated as you are and just make up crap as she goes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the cost of doing business in the third world which is where most of my work was.  And I'm still here so clearly their aim wasn't good enough.  As far as my daughter go's she's far more competent than you at most things I would hazard.  She's only 10 so has a long ways to go yet, but I figure in 10 more years she will be waaaay ahead of me and that will be just fine with me!
Click to expand...



Newsflash, you certainly set the bar low on this one.  I have a feeling she has been your better for most of her life.

You are a fake.  3rd world countries?  I  guess the basement of your Mommy's is a third world country then.  I was in Spain during Marco's time.  I was in Poland before the breakup.  I spent some time in Iran before the fall of the Shah.  Lots of places.  How about Columbia and Panama.  You were a secrit Civilian Agent that moved around on secrit missions.  That's the first sign of a phake.  If you told me where you were and what you did, you would have to kill me.  

I'm done with you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

williepete said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting off topic here but this is near and dear to my heart. The USAF eats its young and drives off the best talent. The Machiavellian types get the lay of the land early and start early at feathering their own nest at the expense of everyone else. The dedicated, mission oriented team players figure out late what is going on. They tend to leave and take their talents with them. What is left is a hierarchy that promotes more of the same. A true pity. I'm still in contact with active duty USAF pilots. Same old story but a bit lower morale given the last 8 years. The tragedy has always been that it would be so easy to have great morale which equals great performance.
Click to expand...


This has been going on for decades.  The way to get promoted is not to a better job.  Just make sure they know that everyone else is doing a bad job.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the best you can come up with you had best go home junior.  I never claimed to be an expert.  There are many people far more informed than I.  I have never denied that.  However, this OP is a discussion about whether the F-35 is too costly for what it delivers.  It is my opinion that it is.  I have worked on many AF bases over my career, including Vandenberg when I was part of the LANDSAT cadre.  I have interacted with many levels of AF brass.  Most were capable bureaucrats, but they were more motivated by their own self interest than they were interested in caring for their troops.
> 
> That is my personal experience.  I never claimed it was true throughout the service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junior?  Why thank you for the compliment.  I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I didn't "KNOW" some of the greats, I served with them.  And I have never spent a single night in Motel 6.
> 
> Does that make me an expert?  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base.  I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System.  I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16.  I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational.  Our F-15As had a 33% generation record.  We found that unacceptable.  But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds.  It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate.  It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem.  They tied everything through the Radar.  You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter.  The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well.  WE were in bad need of better engines.  That was cured in the C model.  Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.
> 
> I suspect that the F-35A is going through the same thing.  It went operational last year.  Give it the next 5 for ironing out and it's time frame will be about what the F-15 was.  You are demanding way too much from a new weapons system.  Remember, I have been there, you haven't.  And I still haven't spent one single night in a Motel 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Great.  You were a staff wonk.  Congrats.  I have spent many a night at a Motel 6.  In some places I have been that was the absolute best available.  I would hazard a guess that I have had more bullets shot at me than you as well.  Doesn't make me an expert gunfighter but I'm better at it than you as I have actually seen the elephant while by your own admission you ran away from the critter.
> 
> Do you fly?  I do.  I would hazard a guess that willipete does too based on his verbiage.  Now, if you want to keep your tiny dick out of this discussion I am happy to accommodate you in a discussion of the facts.  But a staff wonk has as much practical experience at warfighting as my daughter does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu need a better neighborhood if you are shot so many times.  Or move to one where they are poorer shots.
> 
> And that must be one bad Daughter you have.  Is she as opinionated as you are and just make up crap as she goes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's part of the cost of doing business in the third world which is where most of my work was.  And I'm still here so clearly their aim wasn't good enough.  As far as my daughter go's she's far more competent than you at most things I would hazard.  She's only 10 so has a long ways to go yet, but I figure in 10 more years she will be waaaay ahead of me and that will be just fine with me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash, you certainly set the bar low on this one.  I have a feeling she has been your better for most of her life.
> 
> You are a fake.  3rd world countries?  I  guess the basement of your Mommy's is a third world country then.  I was in Spain during Marco's time.  I was in Poland before the breakup.  I spent some time in Iran before the fall of the Shah.  Lots of places.  How about Columbia and Panama.  You were a secrit Civilian Agent that moved around on secrit missions.  That's the first sign of a phake.  If you told me where you were and what you did, you would have to kill me.
> 
> I'm done with you.
Click to expand...







Wrong again buckwheat.  I too was in Spain when Franco was still alive.  That's actually where I met Zemke amazingly enough.  I met Skorzeny there as well (he and Zemke were on semi friendly terms).  Somewhere I have a picture of the three of us having a drink.  And no, I wasn't some super secret agent man.  I was working for BP at the time and most of my work was in Africa.  Then, after I had set up my own environmental cleanup company I was there cleaning up the messes that had been made by BP and Co. over the decades and the majority of that was in Africa.

See, no super secret agent man, just an oil company geologist finding oil.  It says a lot about you that you couldn't even begin to think of a legit reason for someone to be travelling in those various shitholes.....it says you're not very clever.


----------



## DrainBamage

I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base. I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System. I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16. I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational. Our F-15As had a 33% generation record. We found that unacceptable. But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds. It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate. It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem. They tied everything through the Radar. You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter. The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well. WE were in bad need of better engines. That was cured in the C model. Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.
- Daryl Hunt

I'm not military ... just an oil company geologist
- Westwalll


There appears to be a slight difference in military background here.


----------



## Manonthestreet

*1/6/2017*

*By Jon Harper
Termination of F-35 Is ‘Within the Realm of the Possible’ - Blog*


----------



## DrainBamage

Ain't gonna happen. Too much support from congress and DoD.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Ain't gonna happen. Too much support from congress and DoD.


Sounds like Naval version is in real trouble...landing gear needs full rework.....Trump can go Jerry Ford and veto and tweet away......they'll never hold up under the pressure. I wold only buy the Marine version and some for AF.....not a great many just enough to keep up with retirements.....Ad in some of the F-15s we sell to others that are better than ours and move on to next design.......


----------



## DrainBamage

To be fair there have been lots of alarmist calls about whatever version of F-35 is in real trouble because of whatever hardware/software issue, yet the program marches forward with issues being addressed and pilots raving about the capabilities of the plane. No way the nose landing gear issues stops F-35, if I had to bet I'd wager they figure out a fix and have it in place within 18 months and well before F-35C production starts ramping up. Then again what do I know, so just a SWAG.

They spread the pork too far and wide for congress to turn against it. It sucks politics dictates supply chains need to be that way, but that is exactly what will keep congress on board.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> I have served under Tac Airlift (showing my age a bit), TAC, MAC, AAC (it used to stand for Antique Aircraft Command in my day), 8th AF, USAFE, and more.  I was part of the advance that ushered in the brand new F-15A to the first forward operational base. I am well aware of the problems of a new Weapons System. I was sent TDY to help the first forward operational F-16. I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to get a weapons system operational. Our F-15As had a 33% generation record. We found that unacceptable. But the AF said it was good since even Nellis couldn't get that high of a generation on the birds. It wasn't until the early 80s that the F-15A started working towards it's over 70% rate. It wasn't really our fault, it was our problem. They tied everything through the Radar. You lose Radar and you had a single seat grocery getter. The new radar taken from the new C model allowed the guns to be seperate and it released the Aim-9s from it as well. WE were in bad need of better engines. That was cured in the C model. Yes, it took about 10 years to get the F-15 up to speed and then it ruled for the next 30 years.
> - Daryl Hunt
> 
> I'm not military ... just an oil company geologist
> - Westwalll
> 
> 
> There appears to be a slight difference in military background here.







Indeed there is.  Here is where he worked....









And here is one of the many places i worked....







This is what he can fly








And this is one of the many aircraft I am rated on....I have actually flown this aircraft....


----------



## DrainBamage

He has worked with fighter aircraft operations and served in USAF, you have done neither and think going on business trips in the Sahara Desert makes you Indiana Jones, hell your picture even has a tourist on a camel being led by a guide if I had to guess it is outside Merzouga. You're way too impressed with yourself and show signs of serious self-esteem issues.

Oh and here is my wife on the Morocco/Algeria border area of the Sahara Desert, OH MY GOSH she is so brave and surely knows more about how fighter aircraft work than anyone who have actually worked with fighters in the US Air Force.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> He has worked with fighter aircraft operations and served in USAF, you have done neither and think going on business trips in the Sahara Desert makes you Indiana Jones, hell your picture even has a tourist on a camel being led by a guide if I had to guess it is outside Merzouga. You're way too impressed with yourself and show signs of serious self-esteem issues.
> 
> Oh and here is my wife on the Morocco/Algeria border area of the Sahara Desert, OH MY GOSH she is so brave and surely knows more about how fighter aircraft work than anyone who have actually worked with fighters in the US Air Force.










He flew a desk in a office cubicle.  I actually lived and worked in the deserts of Africa.  Your wife took a wonderful "adventure trip" (and sometimes they truly can be a real adventure) and had fun for a couple of weeks.  Good for her.  On the other hand, when you work in an area populated by these sorts it's a tad bit different of an experience.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> To be fair there have been lots of alarmist calls about whatever version of F-35 is in real trouble because of whatever hardware/software issue, yet the program marches forward with issues being addressed and pilots raving about the capabilities of the plane. No way the nose landing gear issues stops F-35, if I had to bet I'd wager they figure out a fix and have it in place within 18 months and well before F-35C production starts ramping up. Then again what do I know, so just a SWAG.
> 
> They spread the pork too far and wide for congress to turn against it. It sucks politics dictates supply chains need to be that way, but that is exactly what will keep congress on board.


The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> He flew a desk in a office cubicle.  I actually lived and worked in the deserts of Africa.  Your wife took a wonderful "adventure trip" (and sometimes they truly can be a real adventure) and had fun for a couple of weeks.  Good for her.  On the other hand, when you work in an area populated by these sorts it's a tad bit different of an experience.


That's pretty funny, you have googled up a picture of Ansar Dine in 2012. That surely proves you have lived an Indiana Jones like existence by going on business trips to Africa.

I'm thinking you are probably used to throwing you working in Africa around as some trump card to validate your opinions on any subject, but it isn't going to fly here. Being a geologist who has done work in Africa doesn't qualify your expertise on USAF combat jets and operations at all, and I find it hilarious you think it does.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He flew a desk in a office cubicle.  I actually lived and worked in the deserts of Africa.  Your wife took a wonderful "adventure trip" (and sometimes they truly can be a real adventure) and had fun for a couple of weeks.  Good for her.  On the other hand, when you work in an area populated by these sorts it's a tad bit different of an experience.
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty funny, you have googled up a picture of Ansar Dine in 2012. That surely proves you have lived an Indiana Jones like existence by going on business trips to Africa.
> 
> I'm thinking you are probably used to throwing you working in Africa around as some trump card to validate your opinions on any subject, but it isn't going to fly here. Being a geologist who has done work in Africa doesn't qualify your expertise on USAF combat jets and operations at all, and I find it hilarious you think it does.
Click to expand...







it was an easy picture to find on the net.  I can upload some if you would like later, but more to the point they were the group who was shooting at us back in 1990-91.  Like I said, I'm not military but I have been shot at, unlike your non hero.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap


I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.

Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.

Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I can upload some if you would like later, but more to the point they were the group who was shooting at us back in 1990-91.  Like I said, I'm not military but I have been shot at, unlike your non hero.


Ansar Dine was founded by Iyad Ag Ghaly in 2011 and operates in Mali. It takes a special talent to be shot at by a group 20 years before they even formed.

Being shot at by Muslim extremists in Africa makes one more knowledgeable of combat aircraft operations how exactly?


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can upload some if you would like later, but more to the point they were the group who was shooting at us back in 1990-91.  Like I said, I'm not military but I have been shot at, unlike your non hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Ansar Dine was founded by Iyad Ag Ghaly in 2011 and operates in Mali. It takes a special talent to be shot at by a group 20 years before they even formed.
> 
> Being shot at by Muslim extremists in Africa makes one more knowledgeable of combat aircraft operations how exactly?
Click to expand...






Yes, but their leader ghauly or whatever his name is, was part of the Tauregs, and thus the connection.  Same leadership, same assholes, same area, different name.


----------



## DrainBamage

Quite a life of adventure being shot at so many times and in so many places, but still not sure how this qualifies one as being more knowledgeable about combat aircraft operations.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> Quite a life of adventure being shot at so many times and in so many places, but still not sure how this qualifies one as being more knowledgeable about combat aircraft operations.








I actually FLY the darned things, unlike your desk jockey.  For one.  I have more than 3,000 hours as PIC.  He has NONE.  I have flown over some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world where if I fuck up, I die.  He had to worry about if his coffee was too hot.  Soooooo, practical flight experience in hostile terrain, or some dude wearing his "CHAIR BORNE" "wing".

And I actually have almost an hour in a MiG-21.  So I actually have flown the fast mover that the F-16 was designed to defeat.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I actually FLY the darned things, unlike your desk jockey.  For one.  I have more than 3,000 hours as PIC.  He has NONE.  I have flown over some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world where if I fuck up, I die.  He had to worry about if his coffee was too hot.  Soooooo, practical flight experience in hostile terrain, or some dude wearing his "CHAIR BORNE" "wing".


So in other words you have zero experience as a combat pilot. What is interesting is all these REAL combat pilots who have thousands of hours in F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s that have actually flown F-35 have a completely different take on it's capabilities than you do. Why do you think that is?



westwall said:


> And I actually have almost an hour in a MiG-21.  So I actually have flown the fast mover that the F-16 was designed to defeat.


Ah that's cool, you had some adventure dealie where you get to take the controls of a MIG-21 for a bit. That must be how all your intimate knowledge of CAS operations from fast movers came from. Well along with being constantly shot at in various countries spanning three decades.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually FLY the darned things, unlike your desk jockey.  For one.  I have more than 3,000 hours as PIC.  He has NONE.  I have flown over some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world where if I fuck up, I die.  He had to worry about if his coffee was too hot.  Soooooo, practical flight experience in hostile terrain, or some dude wearing his "CHAIR BORNE" "wing".
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words you have zero experience as a combat pilot. What is interesting is all these REAL combat pilots who have thousands of hours in F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s that have actually flown F-35 have a completely different take on it's capabilities than you do. Why do you think that is?
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I actually have almost an hour in a MiG-21.  So I actually have flown the fast mover that the F-16 was designed to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah that's cool, you had some adventure dealie where you get to take the controls of a MIG-21 for a bit. That must be how all your intimate knowledge of CAS operations from fast movers came from. Well along with being constantly shot at in various countries spanning three decades.
Click to expand...







Ummmmm, your hero that you've been defending, has no flight experience at all other than what he can get on a flight sim.  I'll take mine over his any day of the week.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Ummmmm, your hero that you've been defending, has no flight experience at all other than what he can get on a flight sim.  I'll take mine over his any day of the week.


You didn't answer the question.

Why do real pilots who flown F-35 and have thousands of hours in F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s have a completely different opinion of the plane than you do? If bragging about being a non-combat pilot with zero military experience gives weight to opinion, how much weight do actual military pilots get?


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmm, your hero that you've been defending, has no flight experience at all other than what he can get on a flight sim.  I'll take mine over his any day of the week.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why do real pilots who flown F-35 and have thousands of hours in F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s have a completely different opinion of the plane than you do? If bragging about being a non-combat pilot with zero military experience gives weight to opinion, how much weight do actual military pilots get?
Click to expand...








I have no idea.  It must be an absolute hoot to fly.  It certainly will have better situational awareness for the pilot when they finally get the helmet to work.  But that's not the question for the umpteenth time.  That question is the exorbitant cost worth it?  I say no.  If the pilots were informed of how few were able to be flown they probably would rather have three Block 60 or 61 F-16's that they will actually be able to fly, for the one F-35 that will be spending the majority of its time in the hangar.  

That's the ultimate problem for the pilots, having enough aircraft, that are serviceable, for them to accumulate hours.


----------



## peach174

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmm, your hero that you've been defending, has no flight experience at all other than what he can get on a flight sim.  I'll take mine over his any day of the week.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why do real pilots who flown F-35 and have thousands of hours in F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s have a completely different opinion of the plane than you do? If bragging about being a non-combat pilot with zero military experience gives weight to opinion, how much weight do actual military pilots get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea.  It must be an absolute hoot to fly.  It certainly will have better situational awareness for the pilot when they finally get the helmet to work.  But that's not the question for the umpteenth time.  That question is the exorbitant cost worth it?  I say no.  If the pilots were informed of how few were able to be flown they probably would rather have three Block 60 or 61 F-16's that they will actually be able to fly, for the one F-35 that will be spending the majority of its time in the hangar.
> 
> That's the ultimate problem for the pilots, having enough aircraft, that are serviceable, for them to accumulate hours.
Click to expand...



Not only that but they're so loud.
Three of them flew into Davis Monthan as I was leaving Tucson on Mon.
None of the pilots there like them.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> That question is the exorbitant cost worth it?  I say no. If the pilots were informed of how few were able to be flown they probably would rather have three Block 60 or 61 F-16's that they will actually be able to fly, for the one F-35 that will be spending the majority of its time in the hangar.


Pinning down flyaway unit cost on any aircraft is difficult, but you sure as hell aren't getting three F-16Es for one F-35A. F-35As in the just completed LRIP-9 had a flyaway cost $102 million each, Bogdan has said LRIP-10 will be 95-95 million, with eventual 85 million in full production. I don't know the unit cost of newest F-16 (I'll look later I think UAE bought some recently) but latest F-18s bought by USN were 78 million each.

The plane is only in initial operating capacity, we have no idea what reliability will be so you're basing part of your argument on unfounded conjecture.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That question is the exorbitant cost worth it?  I say no. If the pilots were informed of how few were able to be flown they probably would rather have three Block 60 or 61 F-16's that they will actually be able to fly, for the one F-35 that will be spending the majority of its time in the hangar.
> 
> 
> 
> Pinning down flyaway unit cost on any aircraft is difficult, but you sure as hell aren't getting three F-16Es for one F-35A. F-35As in the just completed LRIP-9 had a flyaway cost $102 million each, Bogdan has said LRIP-10 will be 95-95 million, with eventual 85 million in full production. I don't know the unit cost of newest F-16 (I'll look later I think UAE bought some recently) but latest F-18s bought by USN were 78 million each.
> 
> The plane is only in initial operating capacity, we have no idea what reliability will be so you're basing part of your argument on unfounded conjecture.
Click to expand...







All up cost for a Block 60 is 55 million (it helps that over 4500 of them have been built)  The best estimate for the F-35 is 176 million.  So a little bit better than 3 F-16's for one F-35.  Numbers don't lie.


----------



## westwall

peach174 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmm, your hero that you've been defending, has no flight experience at all other than what he can get on a flight sim.  I'll take mine over his any day of the week.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why do real pilots who flown F-35 and have thousands of hours in F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s have a completely different opinion of the plane than you do? If bragging about being a non-combat pilot with zero military experience gives weight to opinion, how much weight do actual military pilots get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea.  It must be an absolute hoot to fly.  It certainly will have better situational awareness for the pilot when they finally get the helmet to work.  But that's not the question for the umpteenth time.  That question is the exorbitant cost worth it?  I say no.  If the pilots were informed of how few were able to be flown they probably would rather have three Block 60 or 61 F-16's that they will actually be able to fly, for the one F-35 that will be spending the majority of its time in the hangar.
> 
> That's the ultimate problem for the pilots, having enough aircraft, that are serviceable, for them to accumulate hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but they're so loud.
> Three of them flew into Davis Monthan as I was leaving Tucson on Mon.
> None of the pilots there like them.
Click to expand...







They're no louder than a F-15.  The vectored thrust will concentrate it into a smaller area, but the sound level is basically the same.  We had two of them fly in to the Reno Air Races where they were supposed to do the Heritage Flight.  Both broke down on landing and weren't able to fly out till the next wednesday.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> All up cost for a Block 60 is 55 million (it helps that over 4500 of them have been built)  The best estimate for the F-35 is 176 million.  So a little bit better than 3 F-16's for one F-35.  Numbers don't lie.


Numbers don't lie, but you sure do.

I already posted the LRIP-9 information, it isn't an estimate it is a contract to buy F-35s with flyaway cost of 102 million. Your response was a three year blog post making estimates and to scream that the update information actually provided by DoD is lies. When you say "best estimate" what you really mean is a three year old one that paints the situation the way you want it to.

Do you have a source for your F-16 Block 60 numbers? Given you tendency to make false claims I think providing a source should be a requirement.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> We had two of them fly in to the Reno Air Races where they were supposed to do the Heritage Flight.  Both broke down on landing and weren't able to fly out till the next wednesday.


Another lie from Westwall, F-35s were always intended for static display at Reno Air Races.

hhttp://www.nvracingnews.com/2016/09/17/air-race-update-saturday-sept-17/
_This year’s *static display area* is a great chance to see F-18’s, *F-35’s* as well as an F-15 and both Phantoms._

High speeds in the sky at Reno Air Races
_“We are also excited that on its first-ever tour of air show performances, *Reno will see two F-35s in the line of static displays*,” Crowell said._

You just kind of say whatever pops into your head don't you?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
Click to expand...


Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
Click to expand...

Invalid when you are setting records in fail


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually FLY the darned things, unlike your desk jockey.  For one.  I have more than 3,000 hours as PIC.  He has NONE.  I have flown over some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world where if I fuck up, I die.  He had to worry about if his coffee was too hot.  Soooooo, practical flight experience in hostile terrain, or some dude wearing his "CHAIR BORNE" "wing".
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words you have zero experience as a combat pilot. What is interesting is all these REAL combat pilots who have thousands of hours in F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s that have actually flown F-35 have a completely different take on it's capabilities than you do. Why do you think that is?
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I actually have almost an hour in a MiG-21.  So I actually have flown the fast mover that the F-16 was designed to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah that's cool, you had some adventure dealie where you get to take the controls of a MIG-21 for a bit. That must be how all your intimate knowledge of CAS operations from fast movers came from. Well along with being constantly shot at in various countries spanning three decades.
Click to expand...


With his disposition, he probably gets shot at at Starbucks.  I know it would be tempting when he started in on the Baristas.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invalid when you are setting records in fail
Click to expand...


It's all part of bringing a new modern front lined fighter to do it's job.  The Complexity of the F-15 and the F-16 brought us into a new way of thinking and developing fighters.  The F-35 has done the same but at a much higher level.  

BTW, I spent more than my fair share of time in parameter bunkers manning an M-16.  Have you ever vectored in an F-4 onto a bad guy knowing that you are going to lose your eyebrows to the heat, I have.  

I have first hand knowledge about what it takes to vector in a CAS.  And I didn't give a damned on what type of aircraft doing the drop was.  Just get the damned drop done and do it right.  The Birds depended more on the guy vectoring them in than whether they were popular with the grunts or not.  When your butts on the line, you can't afford to be picky.  Radio Transmission "Hell, I don't want your stinking F-16 to do the job so I will wait until I can get the next available A-10 because well all............" Transmission abruptly ended due to the radio being melted down.  Mission failure.

Just because a person sits at a desk doesn't mean that's all they are or have been.  I have some pretty nasty memory lapses that I don't care to revisit.  The Scrap book is full.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invalid when you are setting records in fail
Click to expand...


If you are such an Expert, tell me which AC that those two terms comes from?


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> All up cost for a Block 60 is 55 million (it helps that over 4500 of them have been built)  The best estimate for the F-35 is 176 million.  So a little bit better than 3 F-16's for one F-35.  Numbers don't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers don't lie, but you sure do.
> 
> I already posted the LRIP-9 information, it isn't an estimate it is a contract to buy F-35s with flyaway cost of 102 million. Your response was a three year blog post making estimates and to scream that the update information actually provided by DoD is lies. When you say "best estimate" what you really mean is a three year old one that paints the situation the way you want it to.
> 
> Do you have a source for your F-16 Block 60 numbers? Given you tendency to make false claims I think providing a source should be a requirement.
Click to expand...






It's a blog post written by experts in the field, who are not beholding to LM, and which is ACTUAL cost.  Not an "estimate" which is what you have presented.  An estimate that doesn't take into account the fact that the aircraft is STILL in development, which means, to a thinking person at least, that the estimate is crap.  

F-16 cost « Defense Issues


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had two of them fly in to the Reno Air Races where they were supposed to do the Heritage Flight.  Both broke down on landing and weren't able to fly out till the next wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from Westwall, F-35s were always intended for static display at Reno Air Races.
> 
> hhttp://www.nvracingnews.com/2016/09/17/air-race-update-saturday-sept-17/
> _This year’s *static display area* is a great chance to see F-18’s, *F-35’s* as well as an F-15 and both Phantoms._
> 
> High speeds in the sky at Reno Air Races
> _“We are also excited that on its first-ever tour of air show performances, *Reno will see two F-35s in the line of static displays*,” Crowell said._
> 
> You just kind of say whatever pops into your head don't you?
Click to expand...







I don't lie dummy.  Here is the RARA announcement.  Funny how you avoided going to the source....  Dumbshit.


*"F-35*

For the first time ever, an F-35 fighter jet, piloted by Maj. William Andreotta, USAF, and assigned to Luke Air Force Base in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale will visit air shows across the country this year.

The jet will make its first appearance as part of the Air Force Heritage Flight program at Luke’s air show on April 2nd and 3rd and then travel to air shows nationwide, including Reno.

The heritage flight program, of which the F-35 is a part, teams up current Air Force fighters with planes from the World War II, Korean and Vietnam eras in a dynamic display of our nation’s airpower history.

Tickets are on sale for the 53rd Annual National Championship Air Races held September 14-18, 2016 at Reno Stead Airport. For more information, or to volunteer, visit http://airrace.org.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
Click to expand...






Hell, why not mention the "Wobblin Gobblin" too......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, why not mention the "Wobblin Gobblin" too......
Click to expand...


Translation from Westwall:  I have no idea so I will try and reflect my way out of yet another series of lies.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, why not mention the "Wobblin Gobblin" too......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation from Westwall:  I have no idea so I will try and reflect my way out of yet another series of lies.
Click to expand...









Poor daryl, no, I know them, just wanted to see if you were as "expert" as you claim and you failed yet again.  The Lawn Dart sobriquet was given to two aircraft, the F-16 and the B1.  The Fiscal Fiasco never made it into general enough usage to be known by more than a few people the more common form of it being FRED, Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster which was applied to the C5 Galaxy.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, why not mention the "Wobblin Gobblin" too......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation from Westwall:  I have no idea so I will try and reflect my way out of yet another series of lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor daryl, no, I know them, just wanted to see if you were as "expert" as you claim and you failed yet again.  The Lawn Dart sobriquet was given to two aircraft, the F-16 and the B1.  The Fiscal Fiasco never made it into general enough usage to be known by more than a few people the more common form of it being FRED, Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster which was applied to the C5 Galaxy.
Click to expand...


You are 1/3rd right.  It's the F-16 that is nicked the lawn dart, not the B-1. The B-1 is nicked The Bone.   And the fiscal fiasco went to the F-15.  So much for you displaying your huge brain.  Instead you display your little itty bitty manhood for all to see.


----------



## there4eyeM

Small, numerous and deadly is the formula. 'Big and expensive' is dangerous. Even WWII showed that to a great extent. Lots of little swarming airplanes sank four Japanese aircraft carriers in something like five minutes, changing the tactical situation immediately and finally, strategically.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Small, numerous and deadly is the formula. 'Big and expensive' is dangerous. Even WWII showed that to a great extent. Lots of little swarming airplanes sank four Japanese aircraft carriers in something like five minutes, changing the tactical situation immediately and finally, strategically.



True for then.  Now, the small and numerous goes to missiles.  Those have to be stopped.  The F-35 has the ability to see them and direct war ships into picking them up at a safe distance.  In order to stop this, the enemy must kill all the F-35s.  Meanwhile, they are losing 4 to one to the F-35 and getting slaughtered by the surface ships.  When it's all over, the F-18 can safely operate.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I don't lie dummy.  Here is the RARA announcement.  Funny how you avoided going to the source....  Dumbshit.


I provided two links specific to Reno events saying it would be TWO F-35s on static display.

You dug up some general describing what a Heritage Flight is and the ONE F-35 that will be doing it. Can you explain why program guides for Reno say static display? Nope. Because you lied. Again.

Reno Championship Air Races |   U.S. Navy Blue Angels to Headline 2016 RARA Performers List


*RARA President and CEO Mike Crowell said. “We are also excited that on its first ever tour of air show performances, Reno will see an F-35 in the line of static displays*

You were claiming they were supposed to fly in the show but broke on landing is a classic Westwall off the cuff lie.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they'll find more problems, happens with every new fighter aircraft. They lost ten F-15s in the 1970s, the first from an electrical fire before Eagle even entered service. Plenty of F-16s went down, everything from engine failures to landing gear issues to sensors. I lost count of how many major incidents with F-18s happened last year, the last was in December that grounded them to investigate canopy.
> 
> Modern fighter aircraft are complex systems and have problems, if anything F-35 is remarkable as a single engine fighter with zero crashes after over 60,000 flight hours.
> 
> Obviously I have no idea how long it will take to design a fix for the F-35C nose gear issue, but after the engine problem that caused the fire in 2015 they developed a fix fairly quickly and were rolling it out to 130 aircraft by early 2016. There aren't many F-35Cs out there right now and USN was only planning on buying four more in 2017, so I can't imagine this issue having that big an impact on the F-35 program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, why not mention the "Wobblin Gobblin" too......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation from Westwall:  I have no idea so I will try and reflect my way out of yet another series of lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor daryl, no, I know them, just wanted to see if you were as "expert" as you claim and you failed yet again.  The Lawn Dart sobriquet was given to two aircraft, the F-16 and the B1.  The Fiscal Fiasco never made it into general enough usage to be known by more than a few people the more common form of it being FRED, Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster which was applied to the C5 Galaxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are 1/3rd right.  It's the F-16 that is nicked the lawn dart, not the B-1. The B-1 is nicked The Bone.   And the fiscal fiasco went to the F-15.  So much for you displaying your huge brain.  Instead you display your little itty bitty manhood for all to see.
Click to expand...







Sure thing "dude"  It seems that MIT disagree's with you....


  Flying Gas Station        Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
       Flying Prostitute        Martin B-26 Marauder
       Flying Potato            Martin-Marietta X-24A
       Flying Flatiron            Martin-Marietta X-24B
       Flying Shithouse         Kaman HH-43 Huskie
       Flying Suitcase              Handley Page Hampden
       Flying Speed Brake        Lockheed Constellation
       Flying Washboard         Ford Trimotor
       FOD Vacuum            Northrop F-89 Scorpion
       Ford                Douglas F4D Skyray
       Fork-tailed Devil        Lockheed P-38 Lightning
       FRED                         Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
       (Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster)
       Fritz                Messerschmitt Bf 109F
       Frog                Martin P5M Mariner


      Kobry ("Cobra")              Bell P-39 Airacobra
       Kraft Ei (power egg)         Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
       Kukuruznik            Antonov An-2
       Lanc                         Avro Lancaster
       Lawn Dart            General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
       Lawn Dart            Rockwell B-1 Lancer
       Lead Sled            McDonnell F3H Demon
       Lead Sled            Republic F-84 Thunderjet
       Lead Sled            Republic F-105 Thunderchief



Aircraft Nicknames


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lie dummy.  Here is the RARA announcement.  Funny how you avoided going to the source....  Dumbshit.
> 
> 
> 
> I provided two links specific to Reno events saying it would be TWO F-35s on static display.
> 
> You dug up some general describing what a Heritage Flight is and the ONE F-35 that will be doing it. Can you explain why program guides for Reno say static display? Nope. Because you lied. Again.
> 
> Reno Championship Air Races |   U.S. Navy Blue Angels to Headline 2016 RARA Performers List
> 
> 
> *RARA President and CEO Mike Crowell said. “We are also excited that on its first ever tour of air show performances, Reno will see an F-35 in the line of static displays*
> 
> You were claiming they were supposed to fly in the show but broke on landing is a classic Westwall off the cuff lie.
Click to expand...





And I provided you the OFFICIAL announcement.  How ignorant are you trying to be?


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I don't lie dummy.


Really? Like how you've only had to use a gun once?




westwall said:


> I'm a little older than you and I've only ever needed a gun once, when I was attacked by bandits in Morocco.



That would be against bandits in Morocco in the 70s of course.


westwall said:


> I was using an AK when we were attacked by *bandits in Morocco back in the 1970's*.



Oh no wait make that bandits in Morocco in the 80s of course.


westwall said:


> Me?  One time.  I was in a shootout with *Moroccan bandits back in the late 1980's.*



As of this thread we've moved it forward yet another decade into the 90s.


westwall said:


> more to the point they were the *group who was shooting at us back in 1990-91*.



And of course it is occasionally in moved to other continents


westwall said:


> But I can say that having been shot at by *real bandits in Pakistan*




You know what above is? Someone who leans on a bullshit story to impress others but can't keep his own lies straight. I took screenshots of 'em too so you can go ahead and delete them if you want, but you're clearly a compulsive liar.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> And I provided you the OFFICIAL announcement.  How ignorant are you trying to be?


No you didn't. The link I gave has a direct quote from the RARA president saying there will be a static display of two F-35s. The President isn't official enough?

You gave a general description of the Heritage Program. You lied. Again.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, remember the term "Lawn Dart".  or how about "Fiscal Fiasco".  Welcome to the humble beginnings of a new Weapons System.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, why not mention the "Wobblin Gobblin" too......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation from Westwall:  I have no idea so I will try and reflect my way out of yet another series of lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor daryl, no, I know them, just wanted to see if you were as "expert" as you claim and you failed yet again.  The Lawn Dart sobriquet was given to two aircraft, the F-16 and the B1.  The Fiscal Fiasco never made it into general enough usage to be known by more than a few people the more common form of it being FRED, Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster which was applied to the C5 Galaxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are 1/3rd right.  It's the F-16 that is nicked the lawn dart, not the B-1. The B-1 is nicked The Bone.   And the fiscal fiasco went to the F-15.  So much for you displaying your huge brain.  Instead you display your little itty bitty manhood for all to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing "dude"  It seems that MIT disagree's with you....
> 
> 
> Flying Gas Station        Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
> Flying Prostitute        Martin B-26 Marauder
> Flying Potato            Martin-Marietta X-24A
> Flying Flatiron            Martin-Marietta X-24B
> Flying Shithouse         Kaman HH-43 Huskie
> Flying Suitcase              Handley Page Hampden
> Flying Speed Brake        Lockheed Constellation
> Flying Washboard         Ford Trimotor
> FOD Vacuum            Northrop F-89 Scorpion
> Ford                Douglas F4D Skyray
> Fork-tailed Devil        Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> FRED                         Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
> (Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster)
> Fritz                Messerschmitt Bf 109F
> Frog                Martin P5M Mariner
> 
> 
> Kobry ("Cobra")              Bell P-39 Airacobra
> Kraft Ei (power egg)         Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
> Kukuruznik            Antonov An-2
> Lanc                         Avro Lancaster
> Lawn Dart            General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
> Lawn Dart            Rockwell B-1 Lancer
> Lead Sled            McDonnell F3H Demon
> Lead Sled            Republic F-84 Thunderjet
> Lead Sled            Republic F-105 Thunderchief
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft Nicknames
Click to expand...


Let's take a look.  

F-100 was the lead sled
C-5 was Fat Arnold
F-105 was the Thud
P-38 was the Lightning (nicked by the British)
B-1 is the Bone

Your cite is false.  I just happen to know first hand and don't have to rely on no "College Boy" to try and change history.  Tell ANY Thud pilot his bird was nicked that and get a snootfull.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I provided you the OFFICIAL announcement.  How ignorant are you trying to be?
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't. The link I gave has a direct quote from the RARA president saying there will be a static display of two F-35s. The President isn't official enough?
> 
> You gave a general description of the Heritage Program. You lied. Again.
Click to expand...







I happen to know the CEO of RARA so no, I didn't lie, and the F-35 was slated for the Heritage Flight as it has done at other venues.  You posted the report AFTER the F-35's broke.  I'm not going to accuse you of lying because to do that requires intent.  I just think you're a brainless 'tard.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, why not mention the "Wobblin Gobblin" too......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation from Westwall:  I have no idea so I will try and reflect my way out of yet another series of lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor daryl, no, I know them, just wanted to see if you were as "expert" as you claim and you failed yet again.  The Lawn Dart sobriquet was given to two aircraft, the F-16 and the B1.  The Fiscal Fiasco never made it into general enough usage to be known by more than a few people the more common form of it being FRED, Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster which was applied to the C5 Galaxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are 1/3rd right.  It's the F-16 that is nicked the lawn dart, not the B-1. The B-1 is nicked The Bone.   And the fiscal fiasco went to the F-15.  So much for you displaying your huge brain.  Instead you display your little itty bitty manhood for all to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing "dude"  It seems that MIT disagree's with you....
> 
> 
> Flying Gas Station        Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
> Flying Prostitute        Martin B-26 Marauder
> Flying Potato            Martin-Marietta X-24A
> Flying Flatiron            Martin-Marietta X-24B
> Flying Shithouse         Kaman HH-43 Huskie
> Flying Suitcase              Handley Page Hampden
> Flying Speed Brake        Lockheed Constellation
> Flying Washboard         Ford Trimotor
> FOD Vacuum            Northrop F-89 Scorpion
> Ford                Douglas F4D Skyray
> Fork-tailed Devil        Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> FRED                         Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
> (Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster)
> Fritz                Messerschmitt Bf 109F
> Frog                Martin P5M Mariner
> 
> 
> Kobry ("Cobra")              Bell P-39 Airacobra
> Kraft Ei (power egg)         Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
> Kukuruznik            Antonov An-2
> Lanc                         Avro Lancaster
> Lawn Dart            General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
> Lawn Dart            Rockwell B-1 Lancer
> Lead Sled            McDonnell F3H Demon
> Lead Sled            Republic F-84 Thunderjet
> Lead Sled            Republic F-105 Thunderchief
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft Nicknames
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look.
> 
> F-100 was the lead sled
> C-5 was Fat Arnold
> F-105 was the Thud
> P-38 was the Lightning (nicked by the British)
> B-1 is the Bone
> 
> Your cite is false.  I just happen to know first hand and don't have to rely on no "College Boy" to try and change history.  Tell ANY Thud pilot his bird was nicked that and get a snootfull.
Click to expand...






Nope.  The cite is accurate.  You're just not as smart as you think you are.  As an example other nicknames for the F-100 were The Hun, and the Slick Chick for the RF version.  Other nicknames for the C-5 were Lockheed Hilton, and Linda Lovelace.  The F-105 had a multitude of nicknames the most common being Thud, but almost as many referred to it as the Ultra Hog, Super Hog, and Lead Sled.  Lightning was the OFFICIAL service name of the P-38.  It's nicknames included Fork Tailed Devil (German) and Whistling Death (Japanese).


So, you see, aircraft rarely have but a single nickname.  In fact most have three or more based on how many nations used and fought against them.  A PILOT knows these sorts of things.  A desk jockey, on the other hand, doesn't.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lie dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Like how you've only had to use a gun once?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little older than you and I've only ever needed a gun once, when I was attacked by bandits in Morocco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be against bandits in Morocco in the 70s of course.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was using an AK when we were attacked by *bandits in Morocco back in the 1970's*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no wait make that bandits in Morocco in the 80s of course.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me?  One time.  I was in a shootout with *Moroccan bandits back in the late 1980's.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of this thread we've moved it forward yet another decade into the 90s.
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> more to the point they were the *group who was shooting at us back in 1990-91*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course it is occasionally in moved to other continents
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I can say that having been shot at by *real bandits in Pakistan*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what above is? Someone who leans on a bullshit story to impress others but can't keep his own lies straight. I took screenshots of 'em too so you can go ahead and delete them if you want, but you're clearly a compulsive liar.
Click to expand...







I've only had to shoot back at bad guys one time, and that was the Moroccans.  I'm old, forgive me if I forgot the exact time from 40-50 years ago.  Let me know how good your memory is when you get to my age.  The Pakis we didn't bother to shoot back as they were so far away, that was in the '90's and when we showed we had guns of our own they went away.

When one works in third world shitholes this sort of thing go's with the territory.  Had you ever left your suffering mothers basement you would know this.

Now i must figure out which sock you are as you were able to dig up stuff I don't think I could find!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation from Westwall:  I have no idea so I will try and reflect my way out of yet another series of lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor daryl, no, I know them, just wanted to see if you were as "expert" as you claim and you failed yet again.  The Lawn Dart sobriquet was given to two aircraft, the F-16 and the B1.  The Fiscal Fiasco never made it into general enough usage to be known by more than a few people the more common form of it being FRED, Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster which was applied to the C5 Galaxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are 1/3rd right.  It's the F-16 that is nicked the lawn dart, not the B-1. The B-1 is nicked The Bone.   And the fiscal fiasco went to the F-15.  So much for you displaying your huge brain.  Instead you display your little itty bitty manhood for all to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing "dude"  It seems that MIT disagree's with you....
> 
> 
> Flying Gas Station        Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
> Flying Prostitute        Martin B-26 Marauder
> Flying Potato            Martin-Marietta X-24A
> Flying Flatiron            Martin-Marietta X-24B
> Flying Shithouse         Kaman HH-43 Huskie
> Flying Suitcase              Handley Page Hampden
> Flying Speed Brake        Lockheed Constellation
> Flying Washboard         Ford Trimotor
> FOD Vacuum            Northrop F-89 Scorpion
> Ford                Douglas F4D Skyray
> Fork-tailed Devil        Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> FRED                         Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
> (Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster)
> Fritz                Messerschmitt Bf 109F
> Frog                Martin P5M Mariner
> 
> 
> Kobry ("Cobra")              Bell P-39 Airacobra
> Kraft Ei (power egg)         Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
> Kukuruznik            Antonov An-2
> Lanc                         Avro Lancaster
> Lawn Dart            General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
> Lawn Dart            Rockwell B-1 Lancer
> Lead Sled            McDonnell F3H Demon
> Lead Sled            Republic F-84 Thunderjet
> Lead Sled            Republic F-105 Thunderchief
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft Nicknames
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look.
> 
> F-100 was the lead sled
> C-5 was Fat Arnold
> F-105 was the Thud
> P-38 was the Lightning (nicked by the British)
> B-1 is the Bone
> 
> Your cite is false.  I just happen to know first hand and don't have to rely on no "College Boy" to try and change history.  Tell ANY Thud pilot his bird was nicked that and get a snootfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The cite is accurate.  You're just not as smart as you think you are.  As an example other nicknames for the F-100 were The Hun, and the Slick Chick for the RF version.  Other nicknames for the C-5 were Lockheed Hilton, and Linda Lovelace.  The F-105 had a multitude of nicknames the most common being Thud, but almost as many referred to it as the Ultra Hog, Super Hog, and Lead Sled.  Lightning was the OFFICIAL service name of the P-38.  It's nicknames included Fork Tailed Devil (German) and Whistling Death (Japanese).
> 
> 
> So, you see, aircraft rarely have but a single nickname.  In fact most have three or more based on how many nations used and fought against them.  A PILOT knows these sorts of things.  A desk jockey, on the other hand, doesn't.
Click to expand...


newflash:  You blew it again.  Whistling Death was the F-4U.  Here is an exert of why:

Whistling Death: How The Corsair Got Its Nickname | Fighter Sweep

In order to keep the Corsair as aerodynamically clean as possible, designers made sure there was nothing protruding into the surrounding air to produce additional drag. In addition to the innovative “bent-wing” design, the intake for the aircraft’s turbo-supercharger, intercooler and oil cooler were located in slots in the inboard leading edges of the wings. Air running through those slots at high speeds gave the aircraft a very distinctive sound, and the Japanese tagged the fighter with the moniker, “Whistling Death.”​The P-38 was nickname what you say it was by the PR guys.  Not the people that fought with it.  Supposedly, a German Pilot named it that.  But the Ace of Aces said it burned real well when hit.  It was NEVER called Whislin Death since it was so quiet that it was hard to hear.  The F-4U made that peculiar whistle when it was at attack speed.  Your information is just plain crap.

yes, the F-100 was also called the Hun at one time but the one that stuck was the Lead Sled.  

It took an act of Congress to get rid of the name "Fat Albert" from the C-5A.  That name fit it so well to those that saw it in the air operating from a short field.  Something you have NEVER seen.

You are just making things up as you go to someone that knows.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor daryl, no, I know them, just wanted to see if you were as "expert" as you claim and you failed yet again.  The Lawn Dart sobriquet was given to two aircraft, the F-16 and the B1.  The Fiscal Fiasco never made it into general enough usage to be known by more than a few people the more common form of it being FRED, Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster which was applied to the C5 Galaxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are 1/3rd right.  It's the F-16 that is nicked the lawn dart, not the B-1. The B-1 is nicked The Bone.   And the fiscal fiasco went to the F-15.  So much for you displaying your huge brain.  Instead you display your little itty bitty manhood for all to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing "dude"  It seems that MIT disagree's with you....
> 
> 
> Flying Gas Station        Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
> Flying Prostitute        Martin B-26 Marauder
> Flying Potato            Martin-Marietta X-24A
> Flying Flatiron            Martin-Marietta X-24B
> Flying Shithouse         Kaman HH-43 Huskie
> Flying Suitcase              Handley Page Hampden
> Flying Speed Brake        Lockheed Constellation
> Flying Washboard         Ford Trimotor
> FOD Vacuum            Northrop F-89 Scorpion
> Ford                Douglas F4D Skyray
> Fork-tailed Devil        Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> FRED                         Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
> (Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster)
> Fritz                Messerschmitt Bf 109F
> Frog                Martin P5M Mariner
> 
> 
> Kobry ("Cobra")              Bell P-39 Airacobra
> Kraft Ei (power egg)         Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
> Kukuruznik            Antonov An-2
> Lanc                         Avro Lancaster
> Lawn Dart            General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
> Lawn Dart            Rockwell B-1 Lancer
> Lead Sled            McDonnell F3H Demon
> Lead Sled            Republic F-84 Thunderjet
> Lead Sled            Republic F-105 Thunderchief
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft Nicknames
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look.
> 
> F-100 was the lead sled
> C-5 was Fat Arnold
> F-105 was the Thud
> P-38 was the Lightning (nicked by the British)
> B-1 is the Bone
> 
> Your cite is false.  I just happen to know first hand and don't have to rely on no "College Boy" to try and change history.  Tell ANY Thud pilot his bird was nicked that and get a snootfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The cite is accurate.  You're just not as smart as you think you are.  As an example other nicknames for the F-100 were The Hun, and the Slick Chick for the RF version.  Other nicknames for the C-5 were Lockheed Hilton, and Linda Lovelace.  The F-105 had a multitude of nicknames the most common being Thud, but almost as many referred to it as the Ultra Hog, Super Hog, and Lead Sled.  Lightning was the OFFICIAL service name of the P-38.  It's nicknames included Fork Tailed Devil (German) and Whistling Death (Japanese).
> 
> 
> So, you see, aircraft rarely have but a single nickname.  In fact most have three or more based on how many nations used and fought against them.  A PILOT knows these sorts of things.  A desk jockey, on the other hand, doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newflash:  You blew it again.  Whistling Death was the F-4U.  Here is an exert of why:
> 
> Whistling Death: How The Corsair Got Its Nickname | Fighter Sweep
> 
> In order to keep the Corsair as aerodynamically clean as possible, designers made sure there was nothing protruding into the surrounding air to produce additional drag. In addition to the innovative “bent-wing” design, the intake for the aircraft’s turbo-supercharger, intercooler and oil cooler were located in slots in the inboard leading edges of the wings. Air running through those slots at high speeds gave the aircraft a very distinctive sound, and the Japanese tagged the fighter with the moniker, “Whistling Death.”​The P-38 was nickname what you say it was by the PR guys.  Not the people that fought with it.  Supposedly, a German Pilot named it that.  But the Ace of Aces said it burned real well when hit.  It was NEVER called Whislin Death since it was so quiet that it was hard to hear.  The F-4U made that peculiar whistle when it was at attack speed.  Your information is just plain crap.
> 
> yes, the F-100 was also called the Hun at one time but the one that stuck was the Lead Sled.
> 
> It took an act of Congress to get rid of the name "Fat Albert" from the C-5A.  That name fit it so well to those that saw it in the air operating from a short field.  Something you have NEVER seen.
> 
> You are just making things up as you go to someone that knows.
Click to expand...





Sure thing junior.  Like I said before, many aircraft share nicknames, The F4-U and the P-38 being one of them.  You're a desk jockey and nothing more.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are 1/3rd right.  It's the F-16 that is nicked the lawn dart, not the B-1. The B-1 is nicked The Bone.   And the fiscal fiasco went to the F-15.  So much for you displaying your huge brain.  Instead you display your little itty bitty manhood for all to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing "dude"  It seems that MIT disagree's with you....
> 
> 
> Flying Gas Station        Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
> Flying Prostitute        Martin B-26 Marauder
> Flying Potato            Martin-Marietta X-24A
> Flying Flatiron            Martin-Marietta X-24B
> Flying Shithouse         Kaman HH-43 Huskie
> Flying Suitcase              Handley Page Hampden
> Flying Speed Brake        Lockheed Constellation
> Flying Washboard         Ford Trimotor
> FOD Vacuum            Northrop F-89 Scorpion
> Ford                Douglas F4D Skyray
> Fork-tailed Devil        Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> FRED                         Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
> (Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster)
> Fritz                Messerschmitt Bf 109F
> Frog                Martin P5M Mariner
> 
> 
> Kobry ("Cobra")              Bell P-39 Airacobra
> Kraft Ei (power egg)         Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
> Kukuruznik            Antonov An-2
> Lanc                         Avro Lancaster
> Lawn Dart            General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
> Lawn Dart            Rockwell B-1 Lancer
> Lead Sled            McDonnell F3H Demon
> Lead Sled            Republic F-84 Thunderjet
> Lead Sled            Republic F-105 Thunderchief
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft Nicknames
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look.
> 
> F-100 was the lead sled
> C-5 was Fat Arnold
> F-105 was the Thud
> P-38 was the Lightning (nicked by the British)
> B-1 is the Bone
> 
> Your cite is false.  I just happen to know first hand and don't have to rely on no "College Boy" to try and change history.  Tell ANY Thud pilot his bird was nicked that and get a snootfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The cite is accurate.  You're just not as smart as you think you are.  As an example other nicknames for the F-100 were The Hun, and the Slick Chick for the RF version.  Other nicknames for the C-5 were Lockheed Hilton, and Linda Lovelace.  The F-105 had a multitude of nicknames the most common being Thud, but almost as many referred to it as the Ultra Hog, Super Hog, and Lead Sled.  Lightning was the OFFICIAL service name of the P-38.  It's nicknames included Fork Tailed Devil (German) and Whistling Death (Japanese).
> 
> 
> So, you see, aircraft rarely have but a single nickname.  In fact most have three or more based on how many nations used and fought against them.  A PILOT knows these sorts of things.  A desk jockey, on the other hand, doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newflash:  You blew it again.  Whistling Death was the F-4U.  Here is an exert of why:
> 
> Whistling Death: How The Corsair Got Its Nickname | Fighter Sweep
> 
> In order to keep the Corsair as aerodynamically clean as possible, designers made sure there was nothing protruding into the surrounding air to produce additional drag. In addition to the innovative “bent-wing” design, the intake for the aircraft’s turbo-supercharger, intercooler and oil cooler were located in slots in the inboard leading edges of the wings. Air running through those slots at high speeds gave the aircraft a very distinctive sound, and the Japanese tagged the fighter with the moniker, “Whistling Death.”​The P-38 was nickname what you say it was by the PR guys.  Not the people that fought with it.  Supposedly, a German Pilot named it that.  But the Ace of Aces said it burned real well when hit.  It was NEVER called Whislin Death since it was so quiet that it was hard to hear.  The F-4U made that peculiar whistle when it was at attack speed.  Your information is just plain crap.
> 
> yes, the F-100 was also called the Hun at one time but the one that stuck was the Lead Sled.
> 
> It took an act of Congress to get rid of the name "Fat Albert" from the C-5A.  That name fit it so well to those that saw it in the air operating from a short field.  Something you have NEVER seen.
> 
> You are just making things up as you go to someone that knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing junior.  Like I said before, many aircraft share nicknames, The F4-U and the P-38 being one of them.  You're a desk jockey and nothing more.
Click to expand...


After I show you what I already knew in the form of Cites, you just keep making it up as you go.

I'm through with your lying ass.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing "dude"  It seems that MIT disagree's with you....
> 
> 
> Flying Gas Station        Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
> Flying Prostitute        Martin B-26 Marauder
> Flying Potato            Martin-Marietta X-24A
> Flying Flatiron            Martin-Marietta X-24B
> Flying Shithouse         Kaman HH-43 Huskie
> Flying Suitcase              Handley Page Hampden
> Flying Speed Brake        Lockheed Constellation
> Flying Washboard         Ford Trimotor
> FOD Vacuum            Northrop F-89 Scorpion
> Ford                Douglas F4D Skyray
> Fork-tailed Devil        Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> FRED                         Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
> (Fantastic Ridiculous Economic Disaster)
> Fritz                Messerschmitt Bf 109F
> Frog                Martin P5M Mariner
> 
> 
> Kobry ("Cobra")              Bell P-39 Airacobra
> Kraft Ei (power egg)         Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
> Kukuruznik            Antonov An-2
> Lanc                         Avro Lancaster
> Lawn Dart            General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
> Lawn Dart            Rockwell B-1 Lancer
> Lead Sled            McDonnell F3H Demon
> Lead Sled            Republic F-84 Thunderjet
> Lead Sled            Republic F-105 Thunderchief
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft Nicknames
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look.
> 
> F-100 was the lead sled
> C-5 was Fat Arnold
> F-105 was the Thud
> P-38 was the Lightning (nicked by the British)
> B-1 is the Bone
> 
> Your cite is false.  I just happen to know first hand and don't have to rely on no "College Boy" to try and change history.  Tell ANY Thud pilot his bird was nicked that and get a snootfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The cite is accurate.  You're just not as smart as you think you are.  As an example other nicknames for the F-100 were The Hun, and the Slick Chick for the RF version.  Other nicknames for the C-5 were Lockheed Hilton, and Linda Lovelace.  The F-105 had a multitude of nicknames the most common being Thud, but almost as many referred to it as the Ultra Hog, Super Hog, and Lead Sled.  Lightning was the OFFICIAL service name of the P-38.  It's nicknames included Fork Tailed Devil (German) and Whistling Death (Japanese).
> 
> 
> So, you see, aircraft rarely have but a single nickname.  In fact most have three or more based on how many nations used and fought against them.  A PILOT knows these sorts of things.  A desk jockey, on the other hand, doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newflash:  You blew it again.  Whistling Death was the F-4U.  Here is an exert of why:
> 
> Whistling Death: How The Corsair Got Its Nickname | Fighter Sweep
> 
> In order to keep the Corsair as aerodynamically clean as possible, designers made sure there was nothing protruding into the surrounding air to produce additional drag. In addition to the innovative “bent-wing” design, the intake for the aircraft’s turbo-supercharger, intercooler and oil cooler were located in slots in the inboard leading edges of the wings. Air running through those slots at high speeds gave the aircraft a very distinctive sound, and the Japanese tagged the fighter with the moniker, “Whistling Death.”​The P-38 was nickname what you say it was by the PR guys.  Not the people that fought with it.  Supposedly, a German Pilot named it that.  But the Ace of Aces said it burned real well when hit.  It was NEVER called Whislin Death since it was so quiet that it was hard to hear.  The F-4U made that peculiar whistle when it was at attack speed.  Your information is just plain crap.
> 
> yes, the F-100 was also called the Hun at one time but the one that stuck was the Lead Sled.
> 
> It took an act of Congress to get rid of the name "Fat Albert" from the C-5A.  That name fit it so well to those that saw it in the air operating from a short field.  Something you have NEVER seen.
> 
> You are just making things up as you go to someone that knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing junior.  Like I said before, many aircraft share nicknames, The F4-U and the P-38 being one of them.  You're a desk jockey and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After I show you what I already knew in the form of Cites, you just keep making it up as you go.
> 
> I'm through with your lying ass.
Click to expand...







Blah, blah, blah.  Take your ball and go home junior.  It is a well established FACT that many aircraft share nicknames.  I just proved that and you ignore well known evidence so good bye and don't let the door hit you in the ass.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I'm old, forgive me if I forgot the exact time from 40-50 years ago.


My Dad is 79 and he can keep the decade of interesting life events straight, you might want to see a doctor.



westwall said:


> The Pakis we didn't bother to shoot back as they were so far away, that was in the '90's and when we showed we had guns of our own they went away.


I'll help you keep your lies in order. .. you said the 90s one was an Islamic group in Africa, not Pakistan.



westwall said:


> When one works in third world shitholes this sort of thing go's with the territory.  Had you ever left your suffering mothers basement you would know this.


Fail. I spent most of my childhood in a 3rd world country, I've worked in 3rd world countries, and while we're US citizens my wife and I don't live in the United States



westwall said:


> Now i must figure out which sock you are as you were able to dig up stuff I don't think I could find!


Go to search bar and find all posts by Westwall that include the word bandits. Fun times to see how many times your lies contradict themselves.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old, forgive me if I forgot the exact time from 40-50 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad is 79 and he can keep the decade of interesting life events straight, you might want to see a doctor.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pakis we didn't bother to shoot back as they were so far away, that was in the '90's and when we showed we had guns of our own they went away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll help you keep your lies in order. .. you said the 90s one was an Islamic group in Africa, not Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When one works in third world shitholes this sort of thing go's with the territory.  Had you ever left your suffering mothers basement you would know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail. I spent most of my childhood in a 3rd world country, I've worked in 3rd world countries, and while we're US citizens my wife and I don't live in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now i must figure out which sock you are as you were able to dig up stuff I don't think I could find!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to search bar and find all posts by Westwall that include the word bandits. Fun times to see how many times your lies contradict themselves.
Click to expand...






Good for him.  He's a couple of years older than I so i hope he continues to do well.  And no, the Pakis were in the 90's and the Tauregs were in the late 1970's, early 80's.  I was there for quite a while so those years all blend together.  I'm sorry that you have lived such an uneventful life, those of us who do live eventful lives frequently jumble things up after several decades.  It's called normal.  They even study memory and how it is affected by age.  You will understand when you get older.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> And no, the Pakis were in the 90's and the Tauregs were in the late 1970's, early 80's.


No, keep your lies straight. You just said the Tauregs were in the 90s. That is the problem with spinning so many fables, you can't keep them straight and get busted. Here for consistency this is what you said about the Tauregs:



westwall said:


> but more to the point they were the group who was shooting at us back in 1990-91.  Like I said, I'm not military but I have been shot at





westwall said:


> I was there for quite a while so those years all blend together.


Yeah like anyone is buying this excuse, this big life event of "being shot at" that you've brought up dozens of times but just can't keep straight which decade it happened in. You're a liar, and anyone can see that.



westwall said:


> I'm sorry that you have lived such an uneventful life


You know zero about my life, you're just frustrated because I exposed you as Walter Mitty. Sheesh I can't imagine the self-esteem issues you must have constantly trying to define yourself by bragging to people online with lies about the amazing eventful life you've had, sucks to be you.

Anyone who thinks boasting they've had to stay in Motel 6s and have lived/worked in 3rd world countries qualifies as an amazing feat worth constantly mentioning hasn't done shit.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the Pakis were in the 90's and the Tauregs were in the late 1970's, early 80's.
> 
> 
> 
> No, keep your lies straight. You just said the Tauregs were in the 90s. That is the problem with spinning so many fables, you can't keep them straight and get busted. Here for consistency this is what you said about the Tauregs:
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> but more to the point they were the group who was shooting at us back in 1990-91.  Like I said, I'm not military but I have been shot at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was there for quite a while so those years all blend together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah like anyone is buying this excuse, this big life event of "being shot at" that you've brought up dozens of times but just can't keep straight which decade it happened in. You're a liar, and anyone can see that.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that you have lived such an uneventful life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know zero about my life, you're just frustrated because I exposed you as Walter Mitty. Sheesh I can't imagine the self-esteem issues you must have constantly trying to define yourself by bragging to people online with lies about the amazing eventful life you've had, sucks to be you.
> 
> Anyone who thinks boasting they've had to stay in Motel 6s and have lived/worked in 3rd world countries qualifies as an amazing feat worth constantly mentioning hasn't done shit.
Click to expand...







Nope.  The tauregs were in Africa, not Pakistan dude.  Learn your geography.  All that being said, what exactly does this have to do with the OP?  Nothing I see.  So lets get back to that subject and feel free to start a thread attacking me in the FZ where they belong.  i will happily engage you there.


----------



## westwall

Feel free to open a thread in the FZ attacking me, I look forward to it.  This thread is about the F-35 boondoggle.  Address that OP only.


----------



## Manonthestreet

f-35 getting fat and slow.......
If Trump Wants Lower F-35 Costs, He Should Compete F135 Engine
To date, the F-35’s added weight has caused the four services to lower expectations for critical performance metrics for sustained turning performance (sustained g) and acceleration. The sustained turning requirement was reduced from 5.3 g’s to 4.6 for the F-35A; from 5.0 g’s to 4.5 for the F-35B, and from 5.1g’s to 5.0 for the F-35C. Losing half a “g” will hinder a pilot’s ability to maneuver the jet, but the loss in acceleration is a bigger concern. Being able to gain or recover airspeed is critical to fighter pilot survival, and the time it now takes for each variant of the F-35 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 is far longer than outlined in the original specs. Compared to the original requirements, it now takes an F-35A model 8 additional seconds to get there; the B model 16 seconds longer; the F-35C takes a worrying 43 seconds longer.


----------



## Manonthestreet

http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-amazingly-has-even-more-problems-than-we-thoug-1791285476


----------



## westwall

Manonthestreet said:


> http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-amazingly-has-even-more-problems-than-we-thoug-1791285476







This is why the reported fly away costs are simply untrue.  How can you possibly know what the fly away cost is, when you haven't addressed even half of the issues?


----------



## DrainBamage

Lot of criticisms based on people trying to judge the plane by paper specs, yet why do these pilots keep saying how well it performs and how much it dominates adversaries in exercises?

From a former F-16 pilot: “Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account and this guy isn't just bobbing his head, he has criticisms of the plane as well, everything from vibration to the limitations of view compared to F-16:


So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part.

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

*Update:* _Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape._

It may be difficult to understand why a fighter should be able to «brake» quickly. In the offensive role, this becomes important whenever I point my nose at an opponent who turns towards me. This results in a rapidly decreasing distance between our two airplanes. Being able to slow down quicker provides me the opportunity to maintain my nose pointed towards my opponent longer, thus allowing more opportunities to employ weapons, before the distance decreases so much that a role reversal takes place.

To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.

In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me. (Same principle as many would have seen in Top Gun; «hit the brakes, and he’ll fly right by.» But me quoting Top Gun does not make the movie a documentary).

Defensive situations often result in high AOA and low airspeeds. At high AOA the F-16 reacts slowly when I move the stick sideways to roll the airplane. The best comparison I can think of is being at the helm of ship (without me really knowing what I am talking about – I’m not a sailor). Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA). This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent. This «pedal turn» yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the «pedal turn» provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.


----------



## DrainBamage

Exclusive: Pentagon, Lockheed near deal on $9 billion F-35 contract - sources

The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) are close to deal for a contract worth almost $9 billion as negotiations are poised to bring the price per F-35 below $100 million for the first time, people familiar with the talks said Wednesday. The F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms program, has drawn fire from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump who has made lowering prices for military equipment a pillar of his transition into office. Talks are still ongoing for the tenth batch of stealthy fighter jets with a deal for 90 planes expected to be announced by the end of the month, three people said on condition of anonymity. A Lockheed representative declined to comment and a representative for the fighter program said negotiations are ongoing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Exclusive: Pentagon, Lockheed near deal on $9 billion F-35 contract - sources
> 
> The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) are close to deal for a contract worth almost $9 billion as negotiations are poised to bring the price per F-35 below $100 million for the first time, people familiar with the talks said Wednesday. The F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms program, has drawn fire from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump who has made lowering prices for military equipment a pillar of his transition into office. Talks are still ongoing for the tenth batch of stealthy fighter jets with a deal for 90 planes expected to be announced by the end of the month, three people said on condition of anonymity. A Lockheed representative declined to comment and a representative for the fighter program said negotiations are ongoing.



A new F-15 costs 110 mil.  The intent was to get it down to 85 mil (the A model) all along.  And even without trump meddling, it will still happen.  A block of 90 costs less per plane than when you are buying blocks of 10 or less.


----------



## DrainBamage

More talk on F-35's performance, via 'One our adversaries should fear': US Air Force General describes how the F-35 is above and beyond the competition

At what point do we start believing pilots who fly the plane, instead of people looking at performance specs to determine how well the plane can fight? It seems almost delusional to think all the pilots, from difference branches of service and different countries, some polled anonymously, are wrong on how well F-35 performs, all from looking at a spec number in a vacuum and assuming all air combat relies on that exact spec.

So I followed up, asking him, as one of the few people who have flown both an F-16 and an F-35, what's it like to engage an F-35?
"You never knew I was there," he said with a smile. "You literally would never know I'm there. I flew the F-35 against other fourth-generation platforms and we killed them and they never even saw us." "If you were to engage an F-35 in say, a visual dogfight capability," he added, "the capabilities of the F-35 are absolutely eye-watering compared to a fourth-generation fighter." "*The airplane has unbelievable maneuvering characteristics that make it completely undefeatable in an air-to-air environment. So if it's a long-range contact, you'll never see me and you'll die, and if it's within visual-range contact you'll see me and you're gonna die and you're gonna die very quickly,*" said Pleus, who has 153 flight hours in the F-35.

I'm assuming the maneuvering characteristics he's referring to are the superior angle of attack and control of airspeed that the Norwegian pilot was talking about.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> A new F-15 costs 110 mil.  The intent was to get it down to 85 mil (the A model) all along.  And even without trump meddling, it will still happen.  A block of 90 costs less per plane than when you are buying blocks of 10 or less.


I know. That dullard, in truly dogmatic fashion, is rejecting actual published contract costs of F-35 for LRIP-9 then sourcing a higher number from some blogger three years ago.

He then claims a new F-16 would cost 55 million, despite that figure being published way back in 2009 for the F-16IN. The last actual F-16 sale proposal (Pakistan 2016) was for 8 F-16 Block 52s at 87 million each.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new F-15 costs 110 mil.  The intent was to get it down to 85 mil (the A model) all along.  And even without trump meddling, it will still happen.  A block of 90 costs less per plane than when you are buying blocks of 10 or less.
> 
> 
> 
> I know. That dullard, in truly dogmatic fashion, is rejecting actual published contract costs of F-35 for LRIP-9 then sourcing a higher number from some blogger three years ago.
> 
> He then claims a new F-16 would cost 55 million, despite that figure being published way back in 2009 for the F-16IN. The last actual F-16 sale proposal (Pakistan 2016) was for 8 F-16 Block 52s at 87 million each.
Click to expand...


The Avionics that goes into the new F-16/15/18 directly can be attributed to the F-35 program.  There has been some upgrades to the F-22 from the F-35 program as well.  These upgrades have not been factored into the F-35 program at all.  Yet they are there.

As for the F-35A, Israel is hot to get as many as they can get.  They may be in a Ground to Air rich environment any day now as they see it.  The fact that they can't get the F-22, they need to F-35A to penetrate those umbrellas. 

As for Russian SA300/400, we are seeing a few of the SA300 sites but they don't have very many SA400 missiles to man them.  In fact, they are mounting older missiles on them.   While the F15/16/18 may be in jeopardy, the F-22 and the F-35 can take them out at will. 

The SU-35 looks great on paper but it's not in any kind of numbers and it's turning into a dog until they get things ironed out.  The PAKFA is a joke right now. 

For air and ground attack, the US is looking pretty secure right now.

Been hiding something.  If you notice the tag, I am known in more than a few areas as a Military Historian. You have a question about military history, ask it.  Chances are, I can answer it.  If not, I know of others that can.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F'35 heading to Red Flag. Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda designed to rescue it from Trump. Sustained g turn reduced.....Acceleration reduced......Think they are only sending   A version.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F'35 heading to Red Flag. Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda designed to rescue it from Trump. Sustained g turn reduced.....Acceleration reduced......Think they are only sending   A version.



Yes, only the A since Red Flag is AF only.  I think Trump is just shaking the tree to keep us all entertained.  

But if it's like the exercises the A has been in, it's gonna raise some real hair.  Maybe the F-22 can contain it.  It should be interesting.  The problem is, the AF may not release all the information.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.



You have 3 year old info on that.  Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs.  But in 2016, it was released to 9gs.  The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.  

Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters.  Meaning, it's sortie rate is better.  It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less.  That just came out.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have 3 year old info on that.  Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs.  But in 2016, it was released to 9gs.  The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.
> 
> Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters.  Meaning, it's sortie rate is better.  It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less.  That just came out.
Click to expand...

No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have 3 year old info on that.  Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs.  But in 2016, it was released to 9gs.  The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.
> 
> Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters.  Meaning, it's sortie rate is better.  It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less.  That just came out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently
Click to expand...


Based on old information.  It was based on the AF-2 not the F-35A that went operational.  They are two completely different aircraft.  They just look the same.

The AF is pretty closed mouthed about what's under the hood right now.  Just like they are about the F-22. 

BTW, the gun works just fine on the F-35A.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have 3 year old info on that.  Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs.  But in 2016, it was released to 9gs.  The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.
> 
> Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters.  Meaning, it's sortie rate is better.  It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less.  That just came out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on old information.  It was based on the AF-2 not the F-35A that went operational.  They are two completely different aircraft.  They just look the same.
> 
> The AF is pretty closed mouthed about what's under the hood right now.  Just like they are about the F-22.
> 
> BTW, the gun works just fine on the F-35A.  The AF-2 didn't have one.
Click to expand...

No it's not......Current


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have 3 year old info on that.  Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs.  But in 2016, it was released to 9gs.  The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.
> 
> Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters.  Meaning, it's sortie rate is better.  It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less.  That just came out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on old information.  It was based on the AF-2 not the F-35A that went operational.  They are two completely different aircraft.  They just look the same.
> 
> The AF is pretty closed mouthed about what's under the hood right now.  Just like they are about the F-22.
> 
> BTW, the gun works just fine on the F-35A.  The AF-2 didn't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not......Current
Click to expand...


You stated that it could go no faster than M1.3 yet the Production F-35A is locked at 1.6.  You stated that it could do no more than 6 Gees yet the production F-35A is limited to 9 gees.  Those figures come from the F-35A-AF-2 birds which are still flying but were never intended to go into production.  That's like saying the XP and YP from the old days had the same capability as the P version. You are going to lose this one, you know.  Stick with what comes out of Red Flag.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently


If you mean the article from John Venable, it is indeed almost four years old info.

Here is something from April 2013 addressing it: Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change

That goes into details on F-35 sustained G.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda


I get the sense that if it doesn't conform to your views the information will be called propaganda, but if it does it will be called facts. Am I right?


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> I get the sense that if it doesn't conform to your views the information will be called propaganda, but if it does it will be called facts. Am I right?
Click to expand...

Think I said I'd settle for hold its own. Seems like a pretty minimum standard.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the article from John Venable, it is indeed almost four years old info.
> 
> Here is something from April 2013 addressing it: Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change
> 
> That goes into details on F-35 sustained G.
Click to expand...

No......It's current.....They were discussing the aircraft's weight gain which they said is normal for all platforms and that perhaps an updated engine was necessary to overcome the loss of acceleration especially in Navy model which is just terrible.   I don't post things twice.


----------



## Geaux4it

Indofred said:


> Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
> The Royal navy are going to be serious miffed. Question is, what would possess the British MOD to but a possibly dodgy bit of kit?
> 
> PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.



Someday I'll share some stories about my days flying back seat (Photo Chase) in the F4. Simply an awesome fighter.... HInt..... We left F/A-18's in the dust lol. 

-Geaux


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Think I said I'd settle for hold its own. Seems like a pretty minimum standard.


Right but that gets to my point, by all accounts it has been dominating other aircraft and pilot after pilot has said that their opponent never even sees them or how well it dogfights. That survey they did showed overwhelmingly pilots would rather be in an F-35 in almost every situation.

Yet you dismiss it all as propaganda and point to blog posts with specs. That is what I don't understand, it sure seems that you've got a conclusion and are going to discount any information to the contrary. All the pilots are lying, and these bloggers are right.

At what point do you take pilots who have actually flown F-35 at their word, instead of bloggers who have never flown it?


----------



## DrainBamage

Geaux4it said:


> Someday I'll share some stories about my days flying back seat (Photo Chase) in the F4. Simply an awesome fighter.... HInt..... We left F/A-18's in the dust lol.


Woah there you might raise Westwall's hackles, and he'll come back with some story about how he saved the United States by hanging onto the wing of an SR-71 at mach 3. He worked in third world countries don't you know, and has been attacked by bandits in every decade and every continent.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think I said I'd settle for hold its own. Seems like a pretty minimum standard.
> 
> 
> 
> Right but that gets to my point, by all accounts it has been dominating other aircraft and pilot after pilot has said that their opponent never even sees them or how well it dogfights. That survey they did showed overwhelmingly pilots would rather be in an F-35 in almost every situation.
> 
> Yet you dismiss it all as propaganda and point to blog posts with specs. That is what I don't understand, it sure seems that you've got a conclusion and are going to discount any information to the contrary. All the pilots are lying, and these bloggers are right.
> 
> At what point do you take pilots who have actually flown F-35 at their word, instead of bloggers who have never flown it?
Click to expand...

A pilot .......You now will true test with motivated opposition nice try with bloggers comment cept it all comes from defense and tech and news sites. Llmmmaaaaooko


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the article from John Venable, it is indeed almost four years old info.
> 
> Here is something from April 2013 addressing it: Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change
> 
> That goes into details on F-35 sustained G.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No......It's current.....They were discussing the aircraft's weight gain which they said is normal for all platforms and that perhaps an updated engine was necessary to overcome the loss of acceleration especially in Navy model which is just terrible.   I don't post things twice.
Click to expand...




Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the article from John Venable, it is indeed almost four years old info.
> 
> Here is something from April 2013 addressing it: Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change
> 
> That goes into details on F-35 sustained G.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No......It's current.....They were discussing the aircraft's weight gain which they said is normal for all platforms and that perhaps an updated engine was necessary to overcome the loss of acceleration especially in Navy model which is just terrible.   I don't post things twice.
Click to expand...


If it was written in 2015 and back, it's the F-35A-AF2.  And be very careful about "All Models" reports like you have.  I noted that it drifted using the poor qualities in the F-35B and reported it like it was the A model.  Two entirely different birds who just happen to share 70% of the outer skin.  How about comparing a Harrier to a F-18E.  That would be a similar comparison.

Any data on the F-35C is highly speculative.  They are still modifying it due to some problems it has that the others don't have.  Like I said, it just shares about 70% of the skin but is a mix between the A and the B model.    It's a carrier bird.  Meaning, it's heavier, bigger wings, heavier with an upgraded frame, heavy landing gear and mounts, etc..  It's it's own Aircraft.

Any time you read an article that says "All Models" file it in the round file.

We'll just let Red Flag speak for itself.  I know the two F-35s sent to Green Flag certainly did.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the article from John Venable, it is indeed almost four years old info.
> 
> Here is something from April 2013 addressing it: Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change
> 
> That goes into details on F-35 sustained G.
Click to expand...


It's always been about the software, not the Aircraft.  4 years ago, all testing was done on the AF-2 version that was never intended to go into production.  They didn't dare take it to the 9 gee limits since it would have probably broken it.  Since the A model is in the 9 gee range I imagine that it was first tested at that rate on the AF-2 after a tweak on the software to see how it would work.  Then they probably dialed the AF-2 back to 6 after the tests.  

Maximum allowable Gees changes with the loadout including fuel and weapons.  If you were to hang everything under a F-15E that you could I doubt it would make more than 4.5 gees on a turn.  Meanwhile, the F-15C easily makes a 9+ gee turn even with it's complimentary 6 missiles.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think I said I'd settle for hold its own. Seems like a pretty minimum standard.
> 
> 
> 
> Right but that gets to my point, by all accounts it has been dominating other aircraft and pilot after pilot has said that their opponent never even sees them or how well it dogfights. That survey they did showed overwhelmingly pilots would rather be in an F-35 in almost every situation.
> 
> Yet you dismiss it all as propaganda and point to blog posts with specs. That is what I don't understand, it sure seems that you've got a conclusion and are going to discount any information to the contrary. All the pilots are lying, and these bloggers are right.
> 
> At what point do you take pilots who have actually flown F-35 at their word, instead of bloggers who have never flown it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A pilot .......You now will true test with motivated opposition nice try with bloggers comment cept it all comes from defense and tech and news sites. Llmmmaaaaooko
Click to expand...


Not from Lockheed.  Certainly now from any site with a mil in the end.  Not fully accredited defense sites.

I can see that you would like to read a bit of fluff.  Remember, these people actually believe in this.  FLAT EARTH


----------



## Manonthestreet

Bs


----------



## Manonthestreet

Since ya didn't read ya prolly shouldn't run your yapper


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Bs


----------



## Daryl Hunt

*A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff May Begin Next Year: General*

*Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk January 25, 2017 
*
*The future flyoff between the Cold War-era A-10 ground attack aircraft and the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter will be “very interesting,” a general said.


The A-10 Thunderbolt II is set to go up against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a series of weapons tests as early as next year under a stipulation in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy and spending bill.

 
The legislation also prohibits retirement of the lumbering, low-flying, snub-nosed aircraft popularly known as the Warthog until the Air Force can prove the F-35’s ability to conduct close air support missions on the battlefield.

 
“It’ll be a very interesting test,” said Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office for the service.

 
“The A-10 was built to deal with tanks in Europe,” he said. “A low, slow, big cannon on the front of it meant to destroy tanks and assist troops in contacts and do [close-air support]” a mission the aircraft has flown more recently in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

 
Pleus added, “CAS is a mission, not an airplane.”


RELATED: Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment

 
The cannon the general referred to is the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Warthog. The weapon can hold as many as 1,174 rounds and is configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.

 
The F-35 also features a gatling gun, albeit a smaller and lighter one.

 
The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.


RELATED: F-35 Could Carry B61 Nuclear Warhead Sooner Than Planned

 
“The A-10 is a great CAS platform in a no-threat environment,” Pleus said, adding it was never meant to be a fast, high-flying aircraft that could maneuver in a contested environment — like in current parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

 
The test between the A-10 and F-35 will be structured and certified by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, Pleus said. “That plan is something they are still developing” for the comparison testing “to start undergoing in 2018,” he said.

 
Citing his F-16 experience, Pleus said he would bet the A-10 comes out “as the better CAS platform” in a no-threat environment against the F-35, which performs similarly to the Fighting Falcon. But “as you now start to built the threat up, the A-10s won’t even enter the airspace before they get shot down — not even within 20 miles within the target.”

 
In that case, the F-35 would be the only aircraft left flying — even against more current versions of fighters.

 
Pleus said the argument isn’t over whether the A-10 has and can still perform close air support missions. The decision for Air Force leadership and lawmakers going forward, however, is how to distribute the resources to platforms that can do the mission, he said.

 
“Where are you getting your bang for your buck?” he said. “A single-platform A-10 that only does CAS and can’t do anything else and it has to be in an uncontested environment is probably not a realistic place for us to be continuing funding…for the future.”

 
The general continued, “If I were to develop that plan you have to show that the close air support is not just in a no-threat environment, because CAS is not always in a no-threat environment.

 
Pleus said, “When we get to the actual testing I think that’s where you’re going to see the differences.”

 



*


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> *A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff May Begin Next Year: General*
> 
> *Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk January 25, 2017 *
> 
> *The future flyoff between the Cold War-era A-10 ground attack aircraft and the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter will be “very interesting,” a general said.*
> 
> 
> *The A-10 Thunderbolt II is set to go up against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a series of weapons tests as early as next year under a stipulation in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy and spending bill.*
> 
> 
> *The legislation also prohibits retirement of the lumbering, low-flying, snub-nosed aircraft popularly known as the Warthog until the Air Force can prove the F-35’s ability to conduct close air support missions on the battlefield.*
> 
> 
> *“It’ll be a very interesting test,” said Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office for the service.*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 was built to deal with tanks in Europe,” he said. “A low, slow, big cannon on the front of it meant to destroy tanks and assist troops in contacts and do [close-air support]” a mission the aircraft has flown more recently in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus added, “CAS is a mission, not an airplane.”*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment*
> 
> 
> *The cannon the general referred to is the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Warthog. The weapon can hold as many as 1,174 rounds and is configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.*
> 
> 
> *The F-35 also features a gatling gun, albeit a smaller and lighter one.*
> 
> 
> *The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: F-35 Could Carry B61 Nuclear Warhead Sooner Than Planned*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 is a great CAS platform in a no-threat environment,” Pleus said, adding it was never meant to be a fast, high-flying aircraft that could maneuver in a contested environment — like in current parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.*
> 
> 
> *The test between the A-10 and F-35 will be structured and certified by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, Pleus said. “That plan is something they are still developing” for the comparison testing “to start undergoing in 2018,” he said.*
> 
> 
> *Citing his F-16 experience, Pleus said he would bet the A-10 comes out “as the better CAS platform” in a no-threat environment against the F-35, which performs similarly to the Fighting Falcon. But “as you now start to built the threat up, the A-10s won’t even enter the airspace before they get shot down — not even within 20 miles within the target.”*
> 
> 
> *In that case, the F-35 would be the only aircraft left flying — even against more current versions of fighters.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said the argument isn’t over whether the A-10 has and can still perform close air support missions. The decision for Air Force leadership and lawmakers going forward, however, is how to distribute the resources to platforms that can do the mission, he said.*
> 
> 
> *“Where are you getting your bang for your buck?” he said. “A single-platform A-10 that only does CAS and can’t do anything else and it has to be in an uncontested environment is probably not a realistic place for us to be continuing funding…for the future.”*
> 
> 
> *The general continued, “If I were to develop that plan you have to show that the close air support is not just in a no-threat environment, because CAS is not always in a no-threat environment.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said, “When we get to the actual testing I think that’s where you’re going to see the differences.”*







220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff May Begin Next Year: General*
> 
> *Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk January 25, 2017 *
> 
> *The future flyoff between the Cold War-era A-10 ground attack aircraft and the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter will be “very interesting,” a general said.*
> 
> 
> *The A-10 Thunderbolt II is set to go up against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a series of weapons tests as early as next year under a stipulation in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy and spending bill.*
> 
> 
> *The legislation also prohibits retirement of the lumbering, low-flying, snub-nosed aircraft popularly known as the Warthog until the Air Force can prove the F-35’s ability to conduct close air support missions on the battlefield.*
> 
> 
> *“It’ll be a very interesting test,” said Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office for the service.*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 was built to deal with tanks in Europe,” he said. “A low, slow, big cannon on the front of it meant to destroy tanks and assist troops in contacts and do [close-air support]” a mission the aircraft has flown more recently in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus added, “CAS is a mission, not an airplane.”*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment*
> 
> 
> *The cannon the general referred to is the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Warthog. The weapon can hold as many as 1,174 rounds and is configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.*
> 
> 
> *The F-35 also features a gatling gun, albeit a smaller and lighter one.*
> 
> 
> *The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: F-35 Could Carry B61 Nuclear Warhead Sooner Than Planned*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 is a great CAS platform in a no-threat environment,” Pleus said, adding it was never meant to be a fast, high-flying aircraft that could maneuver in a contested environment — like in current parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.*
> 
> 
> *The test between the A-10 and F-35 will be structured and certified by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, Pleus said. “That plan is something they are still developing” for the comparison testing “to start undergoing in 2018,” he said.*
> 
> 
> *Citing his F-16 experience, Pleus said he would bet the A-10 comes out “as the better CAS platform” in a no-threat environment against the F-35, which performs similarly to the Fighting Falcon. But “as you now start to built the threat up, the A-10s won’t even enter the airspace before they get shot down — not even within 20 miles within the target.”*
> 
> 
> *In that case, the F-35 would be the only aircraft left flying — even against more current versions of fighters.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said the argument isn’t over whether the A-10 has and can still perform close air support missions. The decision for Air Force leadership and lawmakers going forward, however, is how to distribute the resources to platforms that can do the mission, he said.*
> 
> 
> *“Where are you getting your bang for your buck?” he said. “A single-platform A-10 that only does CAS and can’t do anything else and it has to be in an uncontested environment is probably not a realistic place for us to be continuing funding…for the future.”*
> 
> 
> *The general continued, “If I were to develop that plan you have to show that the close air support is not just in a no-threat environment, because CAS is not always in a no-threat environment.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said, “When we get to the actual testing I think that’s where you’re going to see the differences.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
Click to expand...


Since almost all CAS kills are done by missiles and JDAMS then the gun just isn't that important.  The A-10 is going to need a miracle.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff May Begin Next Year: General*
> 
> *Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk January 25, 2017 *
> 
> *The future flyoff between the Cold War-era A-10 ground attack aircraft and the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter will be “very interesting,” a general said.*
> 
> 
> *The A-10 Thunderbolt II is set to go up against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a series of weapons tests as early as next year under a stipulation in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy and spending bill.*
> 
> 
> *The legislation also prohibits retirement of the lumbering, low-flying, snub-nosed aircraft popularly known as the Warthog until the Air Force can prove the F-35’s ability to conduct close air support missions on the battlefield.*
> 
> 
> *“It’ll be a very interesting test,” said Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office for the service.*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 was built to deal with tanks in Europe,” he said. “A low, slow, big cannon on the front of it meant to destroy tanks and assist troops in contacts and do [close-air support]” a mission the aircraft has flown more recently in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus added, “CAS is a mission, not an airplane.”*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment*
> 
> 
> *The cannon the general referred to is the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Warthog. The weapon can hold as many as 1,174 rounds and is configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.*
> 
> 
> *The F-35 also features a gatling gun, albeit a smaller and lighter one.*
> 
> 
> *The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: F-35 Could Carry B61 Nuclear Warhead Sooner Than Planned*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 is a great CAS platform in a no-threat environment,” Pleus said, adding it was never meant to be a fast, high-flying aircraft that could maneuver in a contested environment — like in current parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.*
> 
> 
> *The test between the A-10 and F-35 will be structured and certified by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, Pleus said. “That plan is something they are still developing” for the comparison testing “to start undergoing in 2018,” he said.*
> 
> 
> *Citing his F-16 experience, Pleus said he would bet the A-10 comes out “as the better CAS platform” in a no-threat environment against the F-35, which performs similarly to the Fighting Falcon. But “as you now start to built the threat up, the A-10s won’t even enter the airspace before they get shot down — not even within 20 miles within the target.”*
> 
> 
> *In that case, the F-35 would be the only aircraft left flying — even against more current versions of fighters.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said the argument isn’t over whether the A-10 has and can still perform close air support missions. The decision for Air Force leadership and lawmakers going forward, however, is how to distribute the resources to platforms that can do the mission, he said.*
> 
> 
> *“Where are you getting your bang for your buck?” he said. “A single-platform A-10 that only does CAS and can’t do anything else and it has to be in an uncontested environment is probably not a realistic place for us to be continuing funding…for the future.”*
> 
> 
> *The general continued, “If I were to develop that plan you have to show that the close air support is not just in a no-threat environment, because CAS is not always in a no-threat environment.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said, “When we get to the actual testing I think that’s where you’re going to see the differences.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since almost all CAS kills are done by missiles and JDAMS then the gun just isn't that important.  The A-10 is going to need a miracle.
Click to expand...








Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.  Your assertion that no P-47 was ever shot down in air to air combat calls into question either your sanity or your knowledge base.  I'll let you choose which is suspect.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff May Begin Next Year: General*
> 
> *Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk January 25, 2017 *
> 
> *The future flyoff between the Cold War-era A-10 ground attack aircraft and the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter will be “very interesting,” a general said.*
> 
> 
> *The A-10 Thunderbolt II is set to go up against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a series of weapons tests as early as next year under a stipulation in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy and spending bill.*
> 
> 
> *The legislation also prohibits retirement of the lumbering, low-flying, snub-nosed aircraft popularly known as the Warthog until the Air Force can prove the F-35’s ability to conduct close air support missions on the battlefield.*
> 
> 
> *“It’ll be a very interesting test,” said Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office for the service.*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 was built to deal with tanks in Europe,” he said. “A low, slow, big cannon on the front of it meant to destroy tanks and assist troops in contacts and do [close-air support]” a mission the aircraft has flown more recently in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus added, “CAS is a mission, not an airplane.”*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment*
> 
> 
> *The cannon the general referred to is the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Warthog. The weapon can hold as many as 1,174 rounds and is configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.*
> 
> 
> *The F-35 also features a gatling gun, albeit a smaller and lighter one.*
> 
> 
> *The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: F-35 Could Carry B61 Nuclear Warhead Sooner Than Planned*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 is a great CAS platform in a no-threat environment,” Pleus said, adding it was never meant to be a fast, high-flying aircraft that could maneuver in a contested environment — like in current parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.*
> 
> 
> *The test between the A-10 and F-35 will be structured and certified by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, Pleus said. “That plan is something they are still developing” for the comparison testing “to start undergoing in 2018,” he said.*
> 
> 
> *Citing his F-16 experience, Pleus said he would bet the A-10 comes out “as the better CAS platform” in a no-threat environment against the F-35, which performs similarly to the Fighting Falcon. But “as you now start to built the threat up, the A-10s won’t even enter the airspace before they get shot down — not even within 20 miles within the target.”*
> 
> 
> *In that case, the F-35 would be the only aircraft left flying — even against more current versions of fighters.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said the argument isn’t over whether the A-10 has and can still perform close air support missions. The decision for Air Force leadership and lawmakers going forward, however, is how to distribute the resources to platforms that can do the mission, he said.*
> 
> 
> *“Where are you getting your bang for your buck?” he said. “A single-platform A-10 that only does CAS and can’t do anything else and it has to be in an uncontested environment is probably not a realistic place for us to be continuing funding…for the future.”*
> 
> 
> *The general continued, “If I were to develop that plan you have to show that the close air support is not just in a no-threat environment, because CAS is not always in a no-threat environment.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said, “When we get to the actual testing I think that’s where you’re going to see the differences.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since almost all CAS kills are done by missiles and JDAMS then the gun just isn't that important.  The A-10 is going to need a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.  Your assertion that no P-47 was ever shot down in air to air combat calls into question either your sanity or your knowledge base.  I'll let you choose which is suspect.
Click to expand...


Yes, and most of those videos are from gun cameras.  Note:  the picture is always moving to the right.  That isn't A-10 shots, those are AC-130 shots.  The A-10 would be fleeting in and always in a straight line. Most of those shots could not have been made by an A-10 unless they have Trump repeal the laws of Physics.

I am wrong about the P-47 not being shot down.  It's a method to get others to comment and get the discussion going.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> A pilot .......You now will true test with motivated opposition nice try with bloggers comment cept it all comes from defense and tech and news sites. Llmmmaaaaooko


DefenseTech is not the US military, it is a private website that writes articles about the defense industry.

So again, what I"m trying to understand is why you dismiss commentary from pilots who actually fly F-35 about the the plane as propaganda, refusing to accept any of it as evidence of how the plane performs, yet will latch onto any negative information from non-military sources that haven't flown it?

I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...


Your obsession with strafing demonstrates you are stuck in 1945. 

A-10s gun is an advantage it has over other CAS platforms, and there are advantages other CAS platforms have over A-10. The overwhelming majority of CAS is done using precision guided munitions, including with the A-10. The best way to deal with a target on the ground is with a PGM.



westwall said:


> Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.


Ahhh, so this is how your intimate knowledge of what US Army troops think. Not from military service, but from counting youtube and liveleak videos. 

There are more videos of A-10 gun runs because it makes a good video, you can see/hear the plane and the interesting sounds of the gun firing and rounds impacting.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsession with strafing demonstrates you are stuck in 1945.
> 
> A-10s gun is an advantage it has over other CAS platforms, and there are advantages other CAS platforms have over A-10. The overwhelming majority of CAS is done using precision guided munitions, including with the A-10. The best way to deal with a target on the ground is with a PGM.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, so this is how your intimate knowledge of what US Army troops think. Not from military service, but from counting youtube and liveleak videos.
> 
> There are more videos of A-10 gun runs because it makes a good video, you can see/hear the plane and the interesting sounds of the gun firing and rounds impacting.
Click to expand...


When those 20 some odd tankers were hit, I watched the "A-10" gun footage.  It moved from left to right.  There is only one type of bird that does that and that is a fixed wing Gunship.  The A-10 was there to keep the enemy honest.  The real  kills were all done by Specter.  For the AC-130 to take out 20 tankers, it's not even one orbit.  many of those "Tapes" do not even belong to the A-10 since it is so short ranged.  You can 10,000 rounds of ammo on a really big gun but if it is beyond your range then you have a flying Ammo truck.  While the A-10 has less than a 30 minute loiter time at the end of it's range, the Gunship has over a 4 hour loiter time and it's not even close to being at the end of it's range.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Since ya didn't read ya prolly shouldn't run your yapper



Take a look at the Military area right now.  Others are now posting and have things to say.  They are bullying and lying out their asses.  You claim this area yet you are too damned lazy to bring it.  Now, you can ban me again and a lot of really good posts are going to be gone.  Plus, at that point, I start my own and just how many of these good people are going to go where they are free to express themselves and be prompted to having good discussions about Military.  You have a choice here.  You can ban me and it goes back to where it was where only 3 people actually posted anything, you can try and build this area up, or you can remove yourself from it.

I don't care how lovey dovey you are with the ones that actually run this area.  I have choices as well.  So what's it going to be.


----------



## DrainBamage

Soldiers on the ground taking fire from bad guys on the hill only care about one thing... the bad guys being neutralized. Whether it is a JDAM from a B-1 they never even saw or a dramatic A-10 gun spam makes no difference.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff May Begin Next Year: General*
> 
> *Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk January 25, 2017 *
> 
> *The future flyoff between the Cold War-era A-10 ground attack aircraft and the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter will be “very interesting,” a general said.*
> 
> 
> *The A-10 Thunderbolt II is set to go up against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a series of weapons tests as early as next year under a stipulation in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy and spending bill.*
> 
> 
> *The legislation also prohibits retirement of the lumbering, low-flying, snub-nosed aircraft popularly known as the Warthog until the Air Force can prove the F-35’s ability to conduct close air support missions on the battlefield.*
> 
> 
> *“It’ll be a very interesting test,” said Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office for the service.*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 was built to deal with tanks in Europe,” he said. “A low, slow, big cannon on the front of it meant to destroy tanks and assist troops in contacts and do [close-air support]” a mission the aircraft has flown more recently in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus added, “CAS is a mission, not an airplane.”*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment*
> 
> 
> *The cannon the general referred to is the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Warthog. The weapon can hold as many as 1,174 rounds and is configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.*
> 
> 
> *The F-35 also features a gatling gun, albeit a smaller and lighter one.*
> 
> 
> *The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: F-35 Could Carry B61 Nuclear Warhead Sooner Than Planned*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 is a great CAS platform in a no-threat environment,” Pleus said, adding it was never meant to be a fast, high-flying aircraft that could maneuver in a contested environment — like in current parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.*
> 
> 
> *The test between the A-10 and F-35 will be structured and certified by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, Pleus said. “That plan is something they are still developing” for the comparison testing “to start undergoing in 2018,” he said.*
> 
> 
> *Citing his F-16 experience, Pleus said he would bet the A-10 comes out “as the better CAS platform” in a no-threat environment against the F-35, which performs similarly to the Fighting Falcon. But “as you now start to built the threat up, the A-10s won’t even enter the airspace before they get shot down — not even within 20 miles within the target.”*
> 
> 
> *In that case, the F-35 would be the only aircraft left flying — even against more current versions of fighters.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said the argument isn’t over whether the A-10 has and can still perform close air support missions. The decision for Air Force leadership and lawmakers going forward, however, is how to distribute the resources to platforms that can do the mission, he said.*
> 
> 
> *“Where are you getting your bang for your buck?” he said. “A single-platform A-10 that only does CAS and can’t do anything else and it has to be in an uncontested environment is probably not a realistic place for us to be continuing funding…for the future.”*
> 
> 
> *The general continued, “If I were to develop that plan you have to show that the close air support is not just in a no-threat environment, because CAS is not always in a no-threat environment.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said, “When we get to the actual testing I think that’s where you’re going to see the differences.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since almost all CAS kills are done by missiles and JDAMS then the gun just isn't that important.  The A-10 is going to need a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.  Your assertion that no P-47 was ever shot down in air to air combat calls into question either your sanity or your knowledge base.  I'll let you choose which is suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and most of those videos are from gun cameras.  Note:  the picture is always moving to the right.  That isn't A-10 shots, those are AC-130 shots.  The A-10 would be fleeting in and always in a straight line. Most of those shots could not have been made by an A-10 unless they have Trump repeal the laws of Physics.
> 
> I am wrong about the P-47 not being shot down.  It's a method to get others to comment and get the discussion going.
Click to expand...









You are incorrect.  The MAJORITY are A-10.  And the majority are from the grunts on the ground.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsession with strafing demonstrates you are stuck in 1945.
> 
> A-10s gun is an advantage it has over other CAS platforms, and there are advantages other CAS platforms have over A-10. The overwhelming majority of CAS is done using precision guided munitions, including with the A-10. The best way to deal with a target on the ground is with a PGM.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, so this is how your intimate knowledge of what US Army troops think. Not from military service, but from counting youtube and liveleak videos.
> 
> There are more videos of A-10 gun runs because it makes a good video, you can see/hear the plane and the interesting sounds of the gun firing and rounds impacting.
Click to expand...








You know what's funny.  You weren't posting when your good buddy was on vacation.  Now you only post when he posts, and you seem to only post in threads where he needs support.  Hmmm.  Very suspicious....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsession with strafing demonstrates you are stuck in 1945.
> 
> A-10s gun is an advantage it has over other CAS platforms, and there are advantages other CAS platforms have over A-10. The overwhelming majority of CAS is done using precision guided munitions, including with the A-10. The best way to deal with a target on the ground is with a PGM.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, so this is how your intimate knowledge of what US Army troops think. Not from military service, but from counting youtube and liveleak videos.
> 
> There are more videos of A-10 gun runs because it makes a good video, you can see/hear the plane and the interesting sounds of the gun firing and rounds impacting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's funny.  You weren't posting when your good buddy was on vacation.  Now you only post when he posts, and you seem to only post in threads where he needs support.  Hmmm.  Very suspicious....
Click to expand...


You and West seem to do that as well.  Of course, I can think of many things to do a conspiracy about.  Way to tray and stifle discussion.  You should be proud of yourself.  Maybe we need to go back to where it was where only your good buddy was allowed to post.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff May Begin Next Year: General*
> 
> *Posted By: Oriana Pawlyk January 25, 2017 *
> 
> *The future flyoff between the Cold War-era A-10 ground attack aircraft and the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter will be “very interesting,” a general said.*
> 
> 
> *The A-10 Thunderbolt II is set to go up against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a series of weapons tests as early as next year under a stipulation in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy and spending bill.*
> 
> 
> *The legislation also prohibits retirement of the lumbering, low-flying, snub-nosed aircraft popularly known as the Warthog until the Air Force can prove the F-35’s ability to conduct close air support missions on the battlefield.*
> 
> 
> *“It’ll be a very interesting test,” said Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office for the service.*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 was built to deal with tanks in Europe,” he said. “A low, slow, big cannon on the front of it meant to destroy tanks and assist troops in contacts and do [close-air support]” a mission the aircraft has flown more recently in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus added, “CAS is a mission, not an airplane.”*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: Air Force Mulls Low-Cost Fighter Experiment*
> 
> 
> *The cannon the general referred to is the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Warthog. The weapon can hold as many as 1,174 rounds and is configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.*
> 
> 
> *The F-35 also features a gatling gun, albeit a smaller and lighter one.*
> 
> 
> *The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.*
> 
> 
> *RELATED: F-35 Could Carry B61 Nuclear Warhead Sooner Than Planned*
> 
> 
> *“The A-10 is a great CAS platform in a no-threat environment,” Pleus said, adding it was never meant to be a fast, high-flying aircraft that could maneuver in a contested environment — like in current parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.*
> 
> 
> *The test between the A-10 and F-35 will be structured and certified by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, Pleus said. “That plan is something they are still developing” for the comparison testing “to start undergoing in 2018,” he said.*
> 
> 
> *Citing his F-16 experience, Pleus said he would bet the A-10 comes out “as the better CAS platform” in a no-threat environment against the F-35, which performs similarly to the Fighting Falcon. But “as you now start to built the threat up, the A-10s won’t even enter the airspace before they get shot down — not even within 20 miles within the target.”*
> 
> 
> *In that case, the F-35 would be the only aircraft left flying — even against more current versions of fighters.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said the argument isn’t over whether the A-10 has and can still perform close air support missions. The decision for Air Force leadership and lawmakers going forward, however, is how to distribute the resources to platforms that can do the mission, he said.*
> 
> 
> *“Where are you getting your bang for your buck?” he said. “A single-platform A-10 that only does CAS and can’t do anything else and it has to be in an uncontested environment is probably not a realistic place for us to be continuing funding…for the future.”*
> 
> 
> *The general continued, “If I were to develop that plan you have to show that the close air support is not just in a no-threat environment, because CAS is not always in a no-threat environment.*
> 
> 
> *Pleus said, “When we get to the actual testing I think that’s where you’re going to see the differences.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 220 light weight rounds vs 1300+ much more effective rounds.  I know which one the ground troops would rather have supporting them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since almost all CAS kills are done by missiles and JDAMS then the gun just isn't that important.  The A-10 is going to need a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the guys on the ground don't think so.  Go to youtube or liveleak and the majority of CAS videos uploaded are of A-10 gun runs.  Your assertion that no P-47 was ever shot down in air to air combat calls into question either your sanity or your knowledge base.  I'll let you choose which is suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and most of those videos are from gun cameras.  Note:  the picture is always moving to the right.  That isn't A-10 shots, those are AC-130 shots.  The A-10 would be fleeting in and always in a straight line. Most of those shots could not have been made by an A-10 unless they have Trump repeal the laws of Physics.
> 
> I am wrong about the P-47 not being shot down.  It's a method to get others to comment and get the discussion going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect.  The MAJORITY are A-10.  And the majority are from the grunts on the ground.
Click to expand...


Wrong, the majority are from Gun Cameras.  You honestly believe that a grunt being shot up takes the time to drag out his phone and record things?  That would be one very dumb and very dead grunt.  Have you ever sat in a bunker hunkered down taking fire?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Soldiers on the ground taking fire from bad guys on the hill only care about one thing... the bad guys being neutralized. Whether it is a JDAM from a B-1 they never even saw or a dramatic A-10 gun spam makes no difference.



Neither have ever been under that kind of fire.  Let's see.  I was in my bunker (ditch, behind the rock) when incoming fire started coming in.  We had lost 2 of our troops already and the bad guy was getting closer.  I grabbed my trusty Iphone and started..........I died very quickly.  If you have a hand on your Iphone then you don't have your two hands on your weapon.  When under fire, a M-16/M-4 beats the devil out of a teddy bear at the time.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> You know what's funny.  You weren't posting when your good buddy was on vacation.  Now you only post when he posts, and you seem to only post in threads where he needs support.  Hmmm.  Very suspicious....


Well I guess so much from the "stay on topic" edict from the mod eh? If we've decided the topic is now each other again instead of F-35, I'd point out that irrational paranoia like you're exhibiting is often a sign of mental illness.

Use your noggin a little there instead of dreaming up conspiracies, I came back to the thread because little alerts popped up on the top of my screen saying someone is quoting/replying/rating my posts, so here I am back in the thread.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's funny.  You weren't posting when your good buddy was on vacation.  Now you only post when he posts, and you seem to only post in threads where he needs support.  Hmmm.  Very suspicious....
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess so much from the "stay on topic" edict from the mod eh?
> 
> If we've decided the topic is now each other again instead of F-35, I'd point out that irrational paranoia like you're exhibiting is often a sign of mental illness.
Click to expand...


But it's us that keep getting side tracked.  You know it, I know and well,  just praise the Lord and pass the powder.


----------



## DrainBamage

You'd think he could just check location of IPs instead of living with paranoia issues, I don't even live in the Untied States.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> You'd think he could just check location of IPs instead of living with paranoia issues, I don't even live in the Untied States.



I own many sites and have a perfectly good server.  He needs to think about that before his next move.  He doesn't get any more chances at this point.  Do you think he understands what I said?


----------



## DrainBamage

What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.









The term is called danger close, and this is why...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term is called danger close, and this is why...
Click to expand...


This has been an extremely poor moderated conversation.  It's about the F-35 not the A-10.   And the question of which is better will be answered next month.  Until then, let's get back to the F-35


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term is called danger close, and this is why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been an extremely poor moderated conversation.  It's about the F-35 not the A-10.   And the question of which is better will be answered next month.  Until then, let's get back to the F-35
Click to expand...







The OP is a question about whether the F-35 is too expensive for what it delivers (in a nutshell), I say yes, and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role, a role that the aircraft's proponents say it will be great at, I am very much in keeping with the OP.  Just a friendly warning, publicly commenting about Moderation is grounds for an immediate ban.  

I am very thick skinned but others here want me to give you another vacation so watch yourself.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,


It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.

Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.

If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?

If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?

If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?

What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.
> 
> Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.
> 
> If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?
> 
> What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.
Click to expand...






What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.

Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term is called danger close, and this is why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been an extremely poor moderated conversation.  It's about the F-35 not the A-10.   And the question of which is better will be answered next month.  Until then, let's get back to the F-35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is a question about whether the F-35 is too expensive for what it delivers (in a nutshell), I say yes, and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role, a role that the aircraft's proponents say it will be great at, I am very much in keeping with the OP.  Just a friendly warning, publicly commenting about Moderation is grounds for an immediate ban.
> 
> I am very thick skinned but others here want me to give you another vacation so watch yourself.
Click to expand...


1.  There is way too much time spent on the A-10 for the OP.  If your buddy wants an A-10 thread, he should start one.  Poor mderation at best.

2.  Go for it.  Others seems to be you and your buddy.  I already have a Message Base ready to go in that event.  And enough people have seen my tag, they can easily find it.  It only goes live if you push this.

The original OP posted that could have gone many ways.  Not just one very narrow direction.  Yes, it's expensive but other weapon systems are benefiting it as well.  That has not been programmed into cost.  That, alone, makes it worth it.  

Now, tell us again why it isn't worth the cost since even the F-15 and the F-18 have benefited in the research and development.  Factor that in in your answer.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.


It is better at some things. Can get there faster, can see the battlefield better, can coordinate with other elements better, can target PGMs faster, can operate in an areas that might be denied to the A-10. That isn't ZERO evidence.

It's comical someone expecting a point to be addressed when their point is a youtube video of an A-10 gun run, complete with someone claiming that proves another aircraft can't do CAS.



westwall said:


> Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.


A-10 is more survivable because it has to be given more likely to get hit. Are there droves of B-1s, F-15Es, F-18s, and F-16s getting shot down that I'm not aware of? Nope. It is utterly retarded to celebrate that a plane's slow speed and mission profile making it vulnerable to being is okay because the plane is tough, and remember which type of plane has been restricted from use because of it's vulnerability. You always assume one MANPAD hit = plane down, you don't plan around an A-10 soldiering on with one engine.



westwall said:


> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.


This is cute coming from the guy a few posts away of accusing me of being another poster. THAT sure had a lot to do with the topic, right King Hypocrite?


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> since even the F-15 and the F-18 have benefited in the research and development.  Factor that in in your answer.


And F-22, and future B-21, etc.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.
> 
> Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.
> 
> If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?
> 
> What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.
> 
> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.
Click to expand...


CAS.  If the CAS is to be done within 150 miles and there is no way to use standoff weapons, it it requires a big gun,     Percentage chance of that is so low it's off scale.  If that becomes the only factor then the A-10 is priceless.  If not......

Like said by another poster, MOST CAS is done by other aircraft.  In order to get the A-10 to extend it's range, you are going to be tying up a tanker or two that could be used for other uses.  The A-10 isn't the only asset out there that needs tanker support.  We only have X number of tankers.

The ONLY time the F-35 loses to the A-10 in ANYTHING is when you have to be down and dirty.  Again, the percentage of missions that this comes up is almost zero.  Next month, things will be answered.  Be prepared for the results.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.
> 
> Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.
> 
> If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?
> 
> What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.
> 
> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.
Click to expand...


In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces.  In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s.  The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses.  How much proof do you need?


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.
> 
> Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.
> 
> If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?
> 
> What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.
> 
> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces.  In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s.  The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses.  How much proof do you need?
Click to expand...







Provide links to support your claims please.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.
> 
> Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.
> 
> If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?
> 
> What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.
> 
> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces.  In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s.  The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses.  How much proof do you need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide links to support your claims please.
Click to expand...



GREEN FLAG

*F-35 performs CAS role during Green Flag *

*F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process*

*This is from a simple search on Google.  You should try it and actually ask the right questions.  Every task they have asked of the F-35A has been positive.  *

*Considering that two of the F35As were tasked with CAS and was successful while the year before, the F-16 and the A-10 was ground to hamburger that tells loads.  When there are no manpads in enemies hands ANY AF Fighter or Attack  bird can handle it.  But introduce manpads and you can't come in low and slow anymore without a suicide pact.  Ask the Russians.*


----------



## DrainBamage

F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag

"Not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the joint-force Green Flag exercises testing the jet and its pilots’ prowess operating it in a contested air-support role in the Western U.S. this month, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Cameron Dadgar, head of the exercise and leader of the 549th Combat Training Sqdn. at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This is notable because A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions"


Apparently this Lt Col Dadgar from the 549th Combat Training Squadron is also in on this vast conspiracy to spin propaganda.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag
> 
> "Not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the joint-force Green Flag exercises testing the jet and its pilots’ prowess operating it in a contested air-support role in the Western U.S. this month, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Cameron Dadgar, head of the exercise and leader of the 549th Combat Training Sqdn. at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This is notable because A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions"
> 
> 
> Apparently this Lt Col Dadgar from the 549th Combat Training Squadron is also in on this vast conspiracy to spin propaganda.



That was unfair. They allowed the grunts to fire back.  And we all know that ground pounders NEVER do that.  Ask the Russians.


----------



## DrainBamage

USAF F-35s arriving at Red Flag 17-1. Funny is how many times I've seen retards claim F-35 can't fly in the rain since it will ruin their stealth coating.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.
> 
> Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.
> 
> If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?
> 
> What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.
> 
> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces.  In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s.  The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses.  How much proof do you need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide links to support your claims please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GREEN FLAG
> 
> *F-35 performs CAS role during Green Flag *
> 
> *F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process*
> 
> *This is from a simple search on Google.  You should try it and actually ask the right questions.  Every task they have asked of the F-35A has been positive.  *
> 
> *Considering that two of the F35As were tasked with CAS and was successful while the year before, the F-16 and the A-10 was ground to hamburger that tells loads.  When there are no manpads in enemies hands ANY AF Fighter or Attack  bird can handle it.  But introduce manpads and you can't come in low and slow anymore without a suicide pact.  Ask the Russians.*
Click to expand...







OK, the first video merely shows it being there, we already knew that, the 2nd link was more interesting.  Here is the relevant section.


"On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display)."

So, they had an aircraft that was limited to two bombs, and they can make the claim that it was there.  OK.  There is nothing here that supports your claim that it was a "star performer".  

Further research found this little tidbit...




_"The planes aren’t using ordnance but are using their sensors to find and target the enemies — based on the sort of capabilities Russia and China boast — and then are sharing data with the older airplanes who kill them._

_“We are continuing to expand our integration with other players,” Silveria said. And he was supposed to fly an F-35 with F-22s last Saturday. Also, he said the F-35s will be executing Close Air Support sorties this week to work out tactics, techniques and procedures._

So the JSF isn’t using ordnance but is just used to search ground targets, not totally the same way as the A-10’s and F-16’s are used."
The JSF.. wow it survived Green Flag:)


So, what they actually did was swan about designating targets for the actual CAS aircraft.  OK, that's useful.  But a whole lot of different aircraft can do that mission.  For a hell of a lot less cost.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> So, they had an aircraft that was limited to two bombs, and they can make the claim that it was there.  OK.  There is nothing here that supports your claim that it was a "star performer".


I'm not sure how your logic is working here, how exactly does the F-35 currently being limited to carrying two bombs prove it didn't perform well? Pilots and commanders saying it performed well supports the claim it was a star performer, it being limited to two bombs right now doesn't counter that.




westwall said:


> So, what they actually did was swan about designating targets for the actual CAS aircraft.  OK, that's useful.  But a whole lot of different aircraft can do that mission.  For a hell of a lot less cost.


No, part of what they were doing was designating for other assets, you're missing the word "also" which implies something in addition to previous statement.

_"The planes aren’t using ordnance but are using their sensors to find and target the enemies — based on the sort of capabilities Russia and China boast — and then are sharing data with the older airplanes who kill them. “We are continuing to expand our integration with other players,” Silveria said. And he was supposed to fly an F-35 with F-22s last Saturday. *Also*, he said the F-35s will be executing Close Air Support sorties this week to work out tactics, techniques and procedures._


----------



## DrainBamage

31st TES F-35s take on Green Flag 15-08

During iteration 15-08, two F-35s took on a *primary exercise role as the close air support providers*, penetrating a contested and degraded battlespace, awaiting *calls for fire* from ground commanders below.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, they had an aircraft that was limited to two bombs, and they can make the claim that it was there.  OK.  There is nothing here that supports your claim that it was a "star performer".
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how your logic is working here, how exactly does the F-35 currently being limited to carrying two bombs prove it didn't perform well? Pilots and commanders saying it performed well supports the claim it was a star performer, it being limited to two bombs right now doesn't counter that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what they actually did was swan about designating targets for the actual CAS aircraft.  OK, that's useful.  But a whole lot of different aircraft can do that mission.  For a hell of a lot less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, part of what they were doing was designating for other assets, you're missing the word "also" which implies something in addition to previous statement.
> 
> _"The planes aren’t using ordnance but are using their sensors to find and target the enemies — based on the sort of capabilities Russia and China boast — and then are sharing data with the older airplanes who kill them. “We are continuing to expand our integration with other players,” Silveria said. And he was supposed to fly an F-35 with F-22s last Saturday. *Also*, he said the F-35s will be executing Close Air Support sorties this week to work out tactics, techniques and procedures._
Click to expand...








I don't think you understand.  it didn't "perform" at all.  It never once entered into contested air space.  Not once.  It designated targets and was never placed in harms way.  In other words, the paid release that was published in AW&ST was not entirely factual.  None were lost because none were risked.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> I don't think you understand.  it didn't "perform" at all.  It never once entered into contested air space.  Not once.  It designated targets and was never placed in harms way.  In other words, the paid release that was published in AW&ST was not entirely factual.  None were lost because none were risked.


No, you're dismissing multiple sources and reading too much into a quote to create yet another Westwall alternate reality. See quote above, primary role as CAS providers penetrating contested battlespace.

You continue to exemplify blind dogma, now anything that doesn't suit your worldview is a paid piece including Aviation Week, yet you'll quote any blogger you can find as gospel to try to make your point.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Mattis just ordered a full review of the program......I'm again getting the impression the Navy doesnt want theirs...or very many of em......


----------



## DrainBamage

Here is a quote from Mo Vaughn, a marine also in on the big conspiracy to lie about the F-35s capabilities

Four of the most experienced USMC F-35B pilots speak about their aircraft. And they say it’s exceptional.

_I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s.  We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out.  All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died.  I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well.  Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there._


----------



## Manonthestreet

An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it as do large number if not most Russian fighters


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it


Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.
> 
> Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.
> 
> If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?
> 
> If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?
> 
> What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.
> 
> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces.  In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s.  The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses.  How much proof do you need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide links to support your claims please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GREEN FLAG
> 
> *F-35 performs CAS role during Green Flag *
> 
> *F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process*
> 
> *This is from a simple search on Google.  You should try it and actually ask the right questions.  Every task they have asked of the F-35A has been positive.  *
> 
> *Considering that two of the F35As were tasked with CAS and was successful while the year before, the F-16 and the A-10 was ground to hamburger that tells loads.  When there are no manpads in enemies hands ANY AF Fighter or Attack  bird can handle it.  But introduce manpads and you can't come in low and slow anymore without a suicide pact.  Ask the Russians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the first video merely shows it being there, we already knew that, the 2nd link was more interesting.  Here is the relevant section.
> 
> 
> "On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display)."
> 
> So, they had an aircraft that was limited to two bombs, and they can make the claim that it was there.  OK.  There is nothing here that supports your claim that it was a "star performer".
> 
> Further research found this little tidbit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The planes aren’t using ordnance but are using their sensors to find and target the enemies — based on the sort of capabilities Russia and China boast — and then are sharing data with the older airplanes who kill them._
> 
> _“We are continuing to expand our integration with other players,” Silveria said. And he was supposed to fly an F-35 with F-22s last Saturday. Also, he said the F-35s will be executing Close Air Support sorties this week to work out tactics, techniques and procedures._
> 
> So the JSF isn’t using ordnance but is just used to search ground targets, not totally the same way as the A-10’s and F-16’s are used."
> The JSF.. wow it survived Green Flag:)
> 
> 
> So, what they actually did was swan about designating targets for the actual CAS aircraft.  OK, that's useful.  But a whole lot of different aircraft can do that mission.  For a hell of a lot less cost.
Click to expand...


First hint that the Link is bogus is that it starts with WORDPRESS.  

Helmet:  The A got the small helmet last year.  The year before and earlier, it was using the Neck Breaker where you had to be over 136 lbs and "This High to go on this Ride".

Weapons:  In 2015, the A could use the gravity bombs (2 of them) and the AMRAAMS.  They didn't want to use the gun quite yet since the last time they played that game was with the F-104 that caused fires in the front of the guns.  But if you can precision hit with a freefall then all is good.  They are now using JDAMS.  And they are working on testing the PGMs.  It's still a fully functional bird and just keeps getting better.  BTW, it has guns now.

And, yes, you are correct.  The F-35A is one damned expensive bird if all you do is use your own CAS.  Or you can vector in Artillery with pinpoint accuracy, hijack a couple of eggs from a passing B-1 and even direct in Naval Guns and Missiles.  Having the gun onboard is just a feel good.  All of this has been done.

To give you an idea, the F-15 has a mod that is progged to take it to 12 AMRAAMS.  Or a few tons of JDAMS and PGMs.  They can be fired outside the lockon range and the F-35 sits 40 to 50 clicks off and guides them in.  At about 35 clicks, they can be seen but not locked on by either ground or air assets.  But at 40 to 50, only the Ground can know they are there but they can't do a damned thing about it just before their screens go blank.  Even the heavily vaunted SA300 and 400 can't see it any further.  The older stuff can't see it at all.  Even if you are aware of him you are in serious trouble since something somewhere has fired a super sonic weapon at your Radar Trailer.

If the F-35A operated like the A-10 and the F-16 on CAS, it would be smoked just like they are in a contested environment.  ISIS has laid it's hands on a few Manpads.  Ask the Russians how that's working out for them.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
Click to expand...


The IRST is very short ranged.  And you really can't use it for lockon.  In contested areas, the F-35A or the B stays at least 40 clicks out and the IRST is worthless.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.  Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.
> 
> Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you.  Attack the points I made, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces.  In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s.  The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses.  How much proof do you need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide links to support your claims please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GREEN FLAG
> 
> *F-35 performs CAS role during Green Flag *
> 
> *F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process*
> 
> *This is from a simple search on Google.  You should try it and actually ask the right questions.  Every task they have asked of the F-35A has been positive.  *
> 
> *Considering that two of the F35As were tasked with CAS and was successful while the year before, the F-16 and the A-10 was ground to hamburger that tells loads.  When there are no manpads in enemies hands ANY AF Fighter or Attack  bird can handle it.  But introduce manpads and you can't come in low and slow anymore without a suicide pact.  Ask the Russians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the first video merely shows it being there, we already knew that, the 2nd link was more interesting.  Here is the relevant section.
> 
> 
> "On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display)."
> 
> So, they had an aircraft that was limited to two bombs, and they can make the claim that it was there.  OK.  There is nothing here that supports your claim that it was a "star performer".
> 
> Further research found this little tidbit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The planes aren’t using ordnance but are using their sensors to find and target the enemies — based on the sort of capabilities Russia and China boast — and then are sharing data with the older airplanes who kill them._
> 
> _“We are continuing to expand our integration with other players,” Silveria said. And he was supposed to fly an F-35 with F-22s last Saturday. Also, he said the F-35s will be executing Close Air Support sorties this week to work out tactics, techniques and procedures._
> 
> So the JSF isn’t using ordnance but is just used to search ground targets, not totally the same way as the A-10’s and F-16’s are used."
> The JSF.. wow it survived Green Flag:)
> 
> 
> So, what they actually did was swan about designating targets for the actual CAS aircraft.  OK, that's useful.  But a whole lot of different aircraft can do that mission.  For a hell of a lot less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First hint that the Link is bogus is that it starts with WORDPRESS.
> 
> Helmet:  The A got the small helmet last year.  The year before and earlier, it was using the Neck Breaker where you had to be over 136 lbs and "This High to go on this Ride".
> 
> Weapons:  In 2015, the A could use the gravity bombs (2 of them) and the AMRAAMS.  They didn't want to use the gun quite yet since the last time they played that game was with the F-104 that caused fires in the front of the guns.  But if you can precision hit with a freefall then all is good.  They are now using JDAMS.  And they are working on testing the PGMs.  It's still a fully functional bird and just keeps getting better.  BTW, it has guns now.
> 
> And, yes, you are correct.  The F-35A is one damned expensive bird if all you do is use your own CAS.  Or you can vector in Artillery with pinpoint accuracy, hijack a couple of eggs from a passing B-1 and even direct in Naval Guns and Missiles.  Having the gun onboard is just a feel good.  All of this has been done.
> 
> To give you an idea, the F-15 has a mod that is progged to take it to 12 AMRAAMS.  Or a few tons of JDAMS and PGMs.  They can be fired outside the lockon range and the F-35 sits 40 to 50 clicks off and guides them in.  At about 35 clicks, they can be seen but not locked on by either ground or air assets.  But at 40 to 50, only the Ground can know they are there but they can't do a damned thing about it just before their screens go blank.  Even the heavily vaunted SA300 and 400 can't see it any further.  The older stuff can't see it at all.  Even if you are aware of him you are in serious trouble since something somewhere has fired a super sonic weapon at your Radar Trailer.
> 
> If the F-35A operated like the A-10 and the F-16 on CAS, it would be smoked just like they are in a contested environment.  ISIS has laid it's hands on a few Manpads.  Ask the Russians how that's working out for them.
Click to expand...








Bombs are great unless the enemy is in close contact, which is generally how insurgents fight it seems..  What do you do then?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Mattis just ordered a full review of the program......I'm again getting the impression the Navy doesnt want theirs...or very many of em......



I don't know if the Navy actually needs the C model when they can borrow the Marines with the B models that are pretty damned effective already.  The B has already been tested to vector in the big stuff the Navy can sling well past the ships ability to see.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRST is very short ranged.  And you really can't use it for lockon.  In contested areas, the F-35A or the B stays at least 40 clicks out and the IRST is worthless.
Click to expand...







Wow.  You don't know anything do you.  The MiG 23's IRST could detect and track an F-16 from head on at a range of 35-40 km.  60 km from the rear.  That was over 20 years ago!

"In 1960s and 1970s, Soviets deployed IRST units on their MiG-23, MiG-31, Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters. This was intended to provide passive BVR surveillance capability to fighters, and also as a way of countering Western advantage in radar technology and countermeasures. In fact, MiG-23 and MiG-31 interceptors were able to track the SR-71 recon aircraft from large distance, possibly up to 100 kilometers. This was despite the fact that the system was rather primitive, and that MiG-31s own skin and canopy would reach temperatures of over 760 degrees Celsius during the intercepts. MiG-23 had an IRST capable of detecting the F-16 at 35-40 km head on and 60 km from the rear. Later developments of Su-27 and MiG-29 families all have internal IRST."

Airborne IRST properties and performance


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The IRST is very short ranged.  And you really can't use it for lockon.  In contested areas, the F-35A or the B stays at least 40 clicks out and the IRST is worthless.


Yep, IRST is no panacea, the more area of the sky you want to scan in a certain amount of time the shorter the effective range. F-35 has a way longer stick here.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Bombs are great unless the enemy is in close contact, which is generally how insurgents fight it seems..  What do you do then?


Ah so all these thousands of JDAMs they have dropped in CAS role against these insurgents who generally fight close have been useless.

Let's repeat again for Westwall: the overwhelming majority of CAS in modern era is performed with precision guided munitions. They can drop bombs accurately enough to hit targets quite close to friendlies.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Wow.  You don't know anything do you.  The MiG 23's IRST could detect and track an F-16 from head on at a range of 35-40 km.  60 km from the rear.  That was over 20 years ago!


You're not proving him wrong by showing tracking ranges of 20-30 miles. What matters is whether IRST can outrange AGP-81 when searching the entire sky, IRST is much shorter range than a good AESA radar.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces.  In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s.  The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses.  How much proof do you need?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide links to support your claims please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GREEN FLAG
> 
> *F-35 performs CAS role during Green Flag *
> 
> *F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process*
> 
> *This is from a simple search on Google.  You should try it and actually ask the right questions.  Every task they have asked of the F-35A has been positive.  *
> 
> *Considering that two of the F35As were tasked with CAS and was successful while the year before, the F-16 and the A-10 was ground to hamburger that tells loads.  When there are no manpads in enemies hands ANY AF Fighter or Attack  bird can handle it.  But introduce manpads and you can't come in low and slow anymore without a suicide pact.  Ask the Russians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the first video merely shows it being there, we already knew that, the 2nd link was more interesting.  Here is the relevant section.
> 
> 
> "On the other side, several other analysts claim the participation of two test aircraft in the exercise was just a PR stunt, since the aircraft is still quite far from achieving a combat readiness required to really support the troops at war: it can’t use the gun, it is limited to a couple of JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and it is still flawed by a long list of serious issues, including those to the 400K USD HMD (Helmet Mounted Display)."
> 
> So, they had an aircraft that was limited to two bombs, and they can make the claim that it was there.  OK.  There is nothing here that supports your claim that it was a "star performer".
> 
> Further research found this little tidbit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The planes aren’t using ordnance but are using their sensors to find and target the enemies — based on the sort of capabilities Russia and China boast — and then are sharing data with the older airplanes who kill them._
> 
> _“We are continuing to expand our integration with other players,” Silveria said. And he was supposed to fly an F-35 with F-22s last Saturday. Also, he said the F-35s will be executing Close Air Support sorties this week to work out tactics, techniques and procedures._
> 
> So the JSF isn’t using ordnance but is just used to search ground targets, not totally the same way as the A-10’s and F-16’s are used."
> The JSF.. wow it survived Green Flag:)
> 
> 
> So, what they actually did was swan about designating targets for the actual CAS aircraft.  OK, that's useful.  But a whole lot of different aircraft can do that mission.  For a hell of a lot less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First hint that the Link is bogus is that it starts with WORDPRESS.
> 
> Helmet:  The A got the small helmet last year.  The year before and earlier, it was using the Neck Breaker where you had to be over 136 lbs and "This High to go on this Ride".
> 
> Weapons:  In 2015, the A could use the gravity bombs (2 of them) and the AMRAAMS.  They didn't want to use the gun quite yet since the last time they played that game was with the F-104 that caused fires in the front of the guns.  But if you can precision hit with a freefall then all is good.  They are now using JDAMS.  And they are working on testing the PGMs.  It's still a fully functional bird and just keeps getting better.  BTW, it has guns now.
> 
> And, yes, you are correct.  The F-35A is one damned expensive bird if all you do is use your own CAS.  Or you can vector in Artillery with pinpoint accuracy, hijack a couple of eggs from a passing B-1 and even direct in Naval Guns and Missiles.  Having the gun onboard is just a feel good.  All of this has been done.
> 
> To give you an idea, the F-15 has a mod that is progged to take it to 12 AMRAAMS.  Or a few tons of JDAMS and PGMs.  They can be fired outside the lockon range and the F-35 sits 40 to 50 clicks off and guides them in.  At about 35 clicks, they can be seen but not locked on by either ground or air assets.  But at 40 to 50, only the Ground can know they are there but they can't do a damned thing about it just before their screens go blank.  Even the heavily vaunted SA300 and 400 can't see it any further.  The older stuff can't see it at all.  Even if you are aware of him you are in serious trouble since something somewhere has fired a super sonic weapon at your Radar Trailer.
> 
> If the F-35A operated like the A-10 and the F-16 on CAS, it would be smoked just like they are in a contested environment.  ISIS has laid it's hands on a few Manpads.  Ask the Russians how that's working out for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombs are great unless the enemy is in close contact, which is generally how insurgents fight it seems..  What do you do then?
Click to expand...


And old adage comes back to when I boxed.  How do you avoid being hit?  Just don't get hit.  You nail the sucker with a JDAM just like the A-10 will have to do.  Flying Nap of the Earth only works these days with TFR and the A-10 will never get that system.  The F-15E has it as does the F-35A.  I flew on one night mission in a B-52 that flew down a canyon.  That made it two times.  My first and my last at the same time.  If conditions are socked in that bad and you need CAS that bad, the only two birds that do it are the F-15E and the F-35A.  CAS has been done once in that situation and the crew was awarded the McKay Trophy.  There were a number F-4Es that could have done it as well but never had to.  The F-111 also could do it.  Funny thing, the F-111 climbs with it's but in the air.  You really have to trust your bird.  Question it for one second and you are scattered for the next 2 or 3 miles.

As for close, you can drop a conventional from 10K and 30K out if you have the bird to do it.  Right now, there are only 3 that have that capability other then the Bombers and those are the F-15E, F-22 and the F-35.  Sorry to inform you are using decades old information.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bombs are great unless the enemy is in close contact, which is generally how insurgents fight it seems..  What do you do then?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so all these thousands of JDAMs they have dropped in CAS role against these insurgents who generally fight close have been useless.
> 
> Let's repeat again for Westwall: the overwhelming majority of CAS in modern era is performed with precision guided munitions. They can drop bombs accurately enough to hit targets quite close to friendlies.
Click to expand...







Let's repeat for drain, CAS aircraft are required to accomplish a LOT of different mission profiles.  You claiming that a gun is useless is not born out by actual, real world experience.
In any sort of urban combat situation the precise use of the 30mm has been a battle winner.  Situations where a JDAM would kill the defending troops were instead handled with the gun, successfully.  

You remind me of all those brainiacs who said modern fighters no longer needed guns because the missiles were going to change everything about air combat.  Guess what.  They were wrong.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bombs are great unless the enemy is in close contact, which is generally how insurgents fight it seems..  What do you do then?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so all these thousands of JDAMs they have dropped in CAS role against these insurgents who generally fight close have been useless.
> 
> Let's repeat again for Westwall: the overwhelming majority of CAS in modern era is performed with precision guided munitions. They can drop bombs accurately enough to hit targets quite close to friendlies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's repeat for drain, CAS aircraft are required to accomplish a LOT of different mission profiles.  You claiming that a gun is useless is not born out by actual, real world experience.
> In any sort of urban combat situation the precise use of the 30mm has been a battle winner.  Situations where a JDAM would kill the defending troops were instead handled with the gun, successfully.
> 
> You remind me of all those brainiacs who said modern fighters no longer needed guns because the missiles were going to change everything about air combat.  Guess what.  They were wrong.
Click to expand...


Back in MY day, the missiles had to be fired in pairs just to get a 30% kill rate.  And they were slow.  To give you an idea, if you fired on a Mig-25, he poured the coals to it and outran your missile without even maneuvering.  Today's missiles are much faster and have at least 4 times the range.  This includes both sides.  Before you jump at that bone, you have to be locked on to hit your target.  The F-35 can be locked on passively and pick up the incoming missiles and direct them dead on target.  Is a foot one way or the other good enough?


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
Click to expand...

Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
Click to expand...


Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.

You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Helmet mounted cueing g fire and forget......Launch your missle at max range I'll beat it.......And you'll be dodging mine


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.
Click to expand...


If you are on the receiving end of it, you don't look.  You just die, Laughing Boy.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of it, you don't look.  You just die, Laughing Boy.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause there is no such thing as missle lock or launch warnings right.....ggeeeeez


----------



## Manonthestreet

The U.S. Military's 'Top Guns' in the Air Have a Big Weakness


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helmet mounted cueing g fire and forget......Launch your missle at max range I'll beat it.......And you'll be dodging mine
Click to expand...


You are going to be too busy avoiding to fire anything.  You don't have to actually kill the bad guy, just disrupt him so he can't do anything else.

Damn, we sure could use you in flight school.  Your wealth of information would be priceless except it's all in your mind.  You have no idea what it takes to be a fighter pilot.  Those dudes and dudetts are the cream of the crop and have eyes that can see things normal people can't.  They can even read things that others can't see on the screens,HUDS and Helmet Displays.  If they can't learn to do that, they become Tanker, Bomber or Cargo Haulers or just wash out.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Helmet mounted cueing......Once there is a vector from launch they will see and be able to launch.....Active homing missles will lock themselves on.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of it, you don't look.  You just die, Laughing Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause there is no such thing as missle lock or launch warnings right.....ggeeeeez
Click to expand...


The F-22 and the F-35 can passively guide it in.  No lock as you would traditionally think.  Again, you are just not making any sense.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Helmet mounted cueing......Once there is a vector from launch they will see and be able to launch.....Active homing missles will lock themselves on.



And if it was launched from a F-18/16/15 from long range, the launching bird will be hot footing it back out of any kind of range.  Now, if it comes in from 3 different directions what do you do?  Tell us oh wise one, our Pilots need to share your brilliance.

Again, you aren't making an sense.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> An F/18 super has irst and F-35 cant hide from it
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helmet mounted cueing g fire and forget......Launch your missle at max range I'll beat it.......And you'll be dodging mine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going to be too busy avoiding to fire anything.  You don't have to actually kill the bad guy, just disrupt him so he can't do anything else.
> 
> Damn, we sure could use you in flight school.  Your wealth of information would be priceless except it's all in your mind.  You have no idea what it takes to be a fighter pilot.  Those dudes and dudetts are the cream of the crop and have eyes that can see things normal people can't.  They can even read things that others can't see on the screens,HUDS and Helmet Displays.  If they can't learn to do that, they become Tanker, Bomber or Cargo Haulers or just wash out.
Click to expand...






One thing that has been proven over and over about the brainiacs and their way of thinking is that they have been wrong every time.  The F-35 is a good aircraft when it works.  There's no doubt of that.  However, it is not the game changer that you all claim it is.  And, for the price I can get way more bang for my buck with other airframes.  And those airframes can be updated for a tenth of the cost to use all the cool stuff the F-35 has.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of it, you don't look.  You just die, Laughing Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause there is no such thing as missle lock or launch warnings right.....ggeeeeez
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-22 and the F-35 can passively guide it in.  No lock as you would traditionally think.  Again, you are just not making any sense.
Click to expand...

Go read the article I just posted.....You seem to know very little and accept Co propaganda as gospel


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding is relative, if AGP-81finds that F-18 at greater range than IRST can volume search the skies then it is hidden enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Cept you have a flying torch with biggest engine and no shielding for it. Planes fly in groups .....4 man formation simply breaks up their areas by plane.......Duh..... And once you fire you aren't hidden anymore and with helmet mounted cueing system they can shoot right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helmet mounted cueing g fire and forget......Launch your missle at max range I'll beat it.......And you'll be dodging mine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going to be too busy avoiding to fire anything.  You don't have to actually kill the bad guy, just disrupt him so he can't do anything else.
> 
> Damn, we sure could use you in flight school.  Your wealth of information would be priceless except it's all in your mind.  You have no idea what it takes to be a fighter pilot.  Those dudes and dudetts are the cream of the crop and have eyes that can see things normal people can't.  They can even read things that others can't see on the screens,HUDS and Helmet Displays.  If they can't learn to do that, they become Tanker, Bomber or Cargo Haulers or just wash out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that has been proven over and over about the brainiacs and their way of thinking is that they have been wrong every time.  The F-35 is a good aircraft when it works.  There's no doubt of that.  However, it is not the game changer that you all claim it is.  And, for the price I can get way more bang for my buck with other airframes.  And those airframes can be updated for a tenth of the cost to use all the cool stuff the F-35 has.
Click to expand...


The A model has the highest fighter turn rate right now.  Even if it is broken, it's a matter of minutes usually before it's ready to launch.  You pop a panel on hinges, replace the box, close the panel and send it on it's way.  The next generation of AC will greatly benefit from the way the F-35 is layed out.

You don't make sense again.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problem with IRST, you have to be looking at the exact location of the target.  Plus, if they are out of range (easily done) you can't pick them up at all.  Nasty things like wind, barometrics and more get in the way.  So you can see a F-16 from 30 clicks away from the front and 60 from the rear.  Okay, but you will have to be a damned site closer to see either the F-22 or the F-35.  And you can't target with IRST.
> 
> You are just grasping at straws at this point and are making absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of it, you don't look.  You just die, Laughing Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause there is no such thing as missle lock or launch warnings right.....ggeeeeez
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-22 and the F-35 can passively guide it in.  No lock as you would traditionally think.  Again, you are just not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go read the article I just posted.....You seem to know very little and accept Co propaganda as gospel
Click to expand...


I read your article.  I don't trust anyone posting in a Blog.  If he were an expert, I imagine he would be posting on one of many reputable military sites.  But he isn't.  He's a friggin blogger.  Hell that's worse than you posting in here.

Again, you aren't making any sense.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helmet mounted cueing......Once there is a vector from launch they will see and be able to launch.....Active homing missles will lock themselves on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it was launched from a F-18/16/15 from long range, the launching bird will be hot footing it back out of any kind of range.  Now, if it comes in from 3 different directions what do you do?  Tell us oh wise one, our Pilots need to share your brilliance.
> 
> Again, you aren't making an sense.
Click to expand...

You do realize our missles have shorter range than theirs ......So again shoot at max....You just wasted your shot


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of it, you don't look.  You just die, Laughing Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause there is no such thing as missle lock or launch warnings right.....ggeeeeez
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-22 and the F-35 can passively guide it in.  No lock as you would traditionally think.  Again, you are just not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go read the article I just posted.....You seem to know very little and accept Co propaganda as gospel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read your article.  I don't trust anyone posting in a Blog.  If he were an expert, I imagine he would be posting on one of many reputable military sites.  But he isn't.  He's a friggin blogger.  Hell that's worse than you posting in here.
> 
> Again, you aren't making any sense.
Click to expand...

Missle specs common knowledge.....Again. You expose your ignorance


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helmet mounted cueing......Once there is a vector from launch they will see and be able to launch.....Active homing missles will lock themselves on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it was launched from a F-18/16/15 from long range, the launching bird will be hot footing it back out of any kind of range.  Now, if it comes in from 3 different directions what do you do?  Tell us oh wise one, our Pilots need to share your brilliance.
> 
> Again, you aren't making an sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize our missles have shorter range than theirs ......So again shoot at max....You just wasted your shot
Click to expand...


You do realize that you need a lock to use that wonderful range, right?You don't make any sense still.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of it, you don't look.  You just die, Laughing Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause there is no such thing as missle lock or launch warnings right.....ggeeeeez
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-22 and the F-35 can passively guide it in.  No lock as you would traditionally think.  Again, you are just not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go read the article I just posted.....You seem to know very little and accept Co propaganda as gospel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read your article.  I don't trust anyone posting in a Blog.  If he were an expert, I imagine he would be posting on one of many reputable military sites.  But he isn't.  He's a friggin blogger.  Hell that's worse than you posting in here.
> 
> Again, you aren't making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missle specs common knowledge.....Again. You expose your ignorance
Click to expand...


If I have a missile that can fire 1000 miles but don't see anything to fire it on, I am just a missile truck transporting missiles.  Again, you are not making any sense.

You are just grabbing at straws.  You remind me of an saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging:"


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause there is no such thing as missle lock or launch warnings right.....ggeeeeez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 and the F-35 can passively guide it in.  No lock as you would traditionally think.  Again, you are just not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go read the article I just posted.....You seem to know very little and accept Co propaganda as gospel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read your article.  I don't trust anyone posting in a Blog.  If he were an expert, I imagine he would be posting on one of many reputable military sites.  But he isn't.  He's a friggin blogger.  Hell that's worse than you posting in here.
> 
> Again, you aren't making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missle specs common knowledge.....Again. You expose your ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a missile that can fire 1000 miles but don't see anything to fire it on, I am just a missile truck transporting missiles.  Again, you are not making any sense.
> 
> You are just grabbing at straws.  You remind me of an saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging:"
Click to expand...

Except they will see you as soon as you fire


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helmet mounted cueing......Once there is a vector from launch they will see and be able to launch.....Active homing missles will lock themselves on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it was launched from a F-18/16/15 from long range, the launching bird will be hot footing it back out of any kind of range.  Now, if it comes in from 3 different directions what do you do?  Tell us oh wise one, our Pilots need to share your brilliance.
> 
> Again, you aren't making an sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize our missles have shorter range than theirs ......So again shoot at max....You just wasted your shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that you need a lock to use that wonderful range, right?You don't make any sense still.
Click to expand...

Active homing fire down vector and forget


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 and the F-35 can passively guide it in.  No lock as you would traditionally think.  Again, you are just not making any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Go read the article I just posted.....You seem to know very little and accept Co propaganda as gospel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read your article.  I don't trust anyone posting in a Blog.  If he were an expert, I imagine he would be posting on one of many reputable military sites.  But he isn't.  He's a friggin blogger.  Hell that's worse than you posting in here.
> 
> Again, you aren't making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missle specs common knowledge.....Again. You expose your ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a missile that can fire 1000 miles but don't see anything to fire it on, I am just a missile truck transporting missiles.  Again, you are not making any sense.
> 
> You are just grabbing at straws.  You remind me of an saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging:"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except they will see you as soon as you fire
Click to expand...


They can pick up the F-15 that is firing, yes.  But he's too far away to prevent him from exiting the area after he fires.  What he won't see is the F-35 pacifically vectoring in the attacking missiles.   At that point, he is more worring about incoming than kicking it in AB to try and catch a F-15 which is much faster.  

Stop digging.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> You claiming that a gun is useless is not born out by actual, real world experience.


I didn't claim this, in fact I said it was an advantage A-10 has. I probably claimed it was overrated, and it certainly is by retards who think a youtube video of the gun being used means every other CAS platform is useless.



westwall said:


> In any sort of urban combat situation the precise use of the 30mm has been a battle winner.  Situations where a JDAM would kill the defending troops were instead handled with the gun, successfully.


You're talking out of your ass, and you know it, your battlefield education is youtube. You honestly think in an urban CAS situation if no A-10 was available they just throw up their hands and go shucks we're stuck. Of course not.



westwall said:


> You remind me of all those brainiacs who said modern fighters no longer needed guns because the missiles were going to change everything about air combat.  Guess what.  They were wrong.


You remind me of a typical older guy who's brain isn't dynamic enough to think outside his own cherished preferences of how things should be done.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Once you fire gee which direction should I look ...Llllmmmaaaoooo.


Actually you have no idea where to look. If that plane is tracking you without you knowing they'll get into position to guide that missile in any way they want, you'd probably get a missile coming down on you from above. Plus planes are moving, unless it is an exactly straight on shot the vector of the attacking plane will have changed by the time you see the missile coming. AMRAAMs over long range use a ballistic trajectory and it probably isn't coming from where your radar can see it, when you know it's coming it'll probably be somewhere above you and you don't have any good information on the launching platform.

Either way you're not interested in looking if you realize a mach 4 missile has gone active on you, you're going to be evading and probably losing most of your energy in the process making the second missile an even easier kill.




Manonthestreet said:


> Active homing fire down vector and forget


At the ranges we're talking about you're at a huge disadvantage just throwing an AMRAAM  (or similar) off into a direction and hoping it's active seeker locks onto a stealthy aircraft. Missiles are small and have much less powerful radars than the planes that launch them.

Meanwhile F-35/F-22 is guiding their missile right to you, and it'll go active when it is within close range and can get a lock.




Manonthestreet said:


> You do realize our missles have shorter range than theirs ......So again shoot at max....You just wasted your shot


The plane with the longer range sensors wins, not the longer range missile. A longer range missile is useless if you're evading someone else with first shot.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Except they will see you as soon as you fire


How? Radars aren't 360 degrees and the plane that can track another without being seen can get into position to launch something that you won't see until it is well on it's way towards your plane. Many air-to-air missile kills the losing plane didn't even know a missile was coming.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> One thing that has been proven over and over about the brainiacs and their way of thinking is that they have been wrong every time.


I'd counter that there are always people who are stuck in the past and cannot get their tiny brains around the fact that technology changes the way combat happens. You love to bring up the premature reliance on missiles, but probably don't realize how much better a AMRAAM is than a 60s era Sparrow. Can you tell me the last time an American plane shot down an enemy plane with a gun?



westwall said:


> And those airframes can be updated for a tenth of the cost to use all the cool stuff the F-35 has.


Oh yeah just add in an airframe designed from ground up to be extremely low observable, no problem. Every plane has room in the nose for EOTs and extra space for internal weapons carriage of two missiles and a couple 2000lb class weapons. The cameras and antennas built into the airframe we can just add those in by bolting them onto the wings and fuselage. It's so easy.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bottom line on this is even with IRST a plane needs to count on that IRST outranging the very powerful AESA radars on F-35 and F-22.

If an F-35 sees a Typhoon with IRST first it will use that advantage to get into a favorable kill position that is outside the field of view of both the Typhoon's radar and IRST. It can launch a BVRAAM and passively guide it to target. The F-35 isn't in FOV of radar or IRST so there isn't any seeing it when it launches, and it isn't detecting the passive missile to have an early track back to the launching platform. All it gets is the RWR going off when that missile goes active, and then seconds to evade and survive.

The notion that a plane having a RWR go off because an AMRAAM just went active and is seconds away would be met with cool calculations to determine the exact location of the launching platform is ridiculous, all that pilot doing is trying to live to the next minute while losing a lot of energy in the process making him even more vulnerable for the next shot.

I'm not doubting the value of IRST systems, but the belief they are some panacea to easily defeat 5th gen LO aircraft is quite misplaced, they are only an advantage if they see the F-22/F-35 first.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Bottom line on this is even with IRST a plane needs to count on that IRST outranging the very powerful AESA radars on F-35 and F-22.
> 
> If an F-35 sees a Typhoon with IRST first it will use that advantage to get into a favorable kill position that is outside the field of view of both the Typhoon's radar and IRST. It can launch a BVRAAM and passively guide it to target. The F-35 isn't in FOV of radar or IRST so there isn't any seeing it when it launches, and it isn't detecting the passive missile to have an early track back to the launching platform. All it gets is the RWR going off when that missile goes active, and then seconds to evade and survive.
> 
> The notion that a plane having a RWR go off because an AMRAAM just went active and is seconds away would be met with cool calculations to determine the exact location of the launching platform is ridiculous, all that pilot doing is trying to live to the next minute while losing a lot of energy in the process making him even more vulnerable for the next shot.
> 
> I'm not doubting the value of IRST systems, but the belief they are some panacea to easily defeat 5th gen LO aircraft is quite misplaced, they are only an advantage if they see the F-22/F-35 first.



Both of them are just trolling.  They don't have a clue so they just make up crap hopping to catch you in something untrue.  Then they will jump on that bone like a starving puppy.


----------



## DrainBamage

LRIP 10 contract prices are out. 90 Jet Breakout:

*The LRIP 10 contract includes 55 jets for the U.S. Services and 35 jets for international partners and foreign military sales customers:

44 F-35A for the U.S. Air Force
9 F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps
2 F-35C for the U.S. Navy
3 F-35B for UK
6 F-35A for Norway
8 F-35A for Australia
2 F-35A for Turkey
4 F-35A for Japan
6 F-35A for Israel
6 F-35A for South Korea

F-35 Costs: The Lot 10 contract represents a $728 million reduction in total price when compared to Lot 9. The approximate per variant unit prices, including jet, engine and fee are as follows:

F-35A: $94.6 million (7.3% reduction from Lot 9)
F-35B: $122.8 million (6.7% reduction from Lot 9)
F-35C $121.8 million (7.9% reduction from Lot 9)
*

Will this the first deliveries to Japan and Korea?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

In the F-22/35 combo, the F-22 will have their AESA Radar turned on.  The other side can see them.  But the F-35 will his turned off.  The F-22 will launch and guide the missile so far in.  When it gets too hot for the F-22, he shuts his radar down and he's gone.  Meanwhile, the F-35 picks the missile up and uses passive systems to finish the job.  At some point, the Missile will go active and no longer need the F-35 to vector it in.  At that point, the black hat becomes aware of it's existence.  At that point, the black hat goes into some severe manuavers to avoid the missile.  But he won't be avoiding one.  He may not be bagged but he's seriously out of position and loses any advantage he once had.  His energy will be low.  And guess what, at the proper time, the F-35 will show up (maybe) on the black hat's radar for a second or two.  That's when he launches his own missiles at you.  The Black Hat now has to avoid another missile with their energy down.


----------



## DrainBamage

Just saw a video of two pilots discussing them working together. The USMC pilot has flown both F-22 and F-35.


Interesting his comments on how the F-22 operates on the RF spectrum, but the F-35 took that to a much broader spectrum with sensory dominance of RF, electro-optical, and infrared.


----------



## DrainBamage

I believe as more and more of these planes are built, pilots from other countries fly them, and they participate in more exercises the evidence of how dominant F-35 performs will be too overwhelming for critics clinging to their battle cries of propaganda and PR stunt, or to keep pointing to spec sheets as evidence of shortcomings despite real world evidence to the contrary.

You'll see more and more 180 degree changes in their opinions, and they'll try their best to downplay their previous obviously foolish viewpoints. As in:

JSF as an interceptor going from bad to superlative



westwall said:


> As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  *It won't be a good interceptor* because it's stealthiness has been compromised





westwall said:


> *The JSF should be a superlative interceptor.*  It's all the other jobs they claim it can do that I question.  Get your facts straight.



JSF servicability going from 4 to comparable to others



westwall said:


> Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be *lucky to get a flight of four airborne* and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron.  That's just reality.





westwall said:


> The Marines have a F-35 detachment in Japan with a *70-80% serviceability rate.*


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> Just saw a video of two pilots discussing them working together. The USMC pilot has flown both F-22 and F-35.
> 
> 
> Interesting his comments on how the F-22 operates on the RF spectrum, but the F-35 took that to a much broader spectrum with sensory dominance of RF, electro-optical, and infrared.








That's not exactly surprising now, is it?  F-22 development was halted to pour money into the JSF program.


----------



## DrainBamage

Not surprising that people making foolish statements about something they know nothing about are forced to change their views in light of overwhelming evidence?

Nope. It ain't.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> Not surprising that people making foolish statements about something they know nothing about are forced to change their views in light of overwhelming evidence?
> 
> Nope. It ain't.








Yet again you lie about what I said.  I have never, ever denied that the JSF would be a good interceptor.  My only point is that trying to get it to do everything else is a list of compromises.  It is you silly people who keep claiming it can do everything, and better than dedicated airframes.  Which, is simply ludicrous.


----------



## Geaux4it

The F-35 is a POS

Kill it

-Geaux


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Yet again you lie about what I said.  I have never, ever denied that the JSF would be a good interceptor.  My only point is that trying to get it to do everything else is a list of compromises.  It is you silly people who keep claiming it can do everything, and better than dedicated airframes.  Which, is simply ludicrous.



Internet doesn't forget, you're just trying to backpedal from your foolishness. This quote is from you, right? How can it be a lie when your direct quote states that it won't be a good interceptor? Sorry dude, when you say stupid things playing armchair expert you've got to own them, so own this.

"As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  *It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised*.   It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock."
-Westwall


----------



## DrainBamage

We should look at that range thing next...


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again you lie about what I said.  I have never, ever denied that the JSF would be a good interceptor.  My only point is that trying to get it to do everything else is a list of compromises.  It is you silly people who keep claiming it can do everything, and better than dedicated airframes.  Which, is simply ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internet doesn't forget, you're just trying to backpedal from your foolishness. This quote is from you, right? How can it be a lie when your direct quote states that it won't be a good interceptor? Sorry dude, when you say stupid things playing armchair expert you've got to own them, so own this.
> 
> "As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  *It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised*.   It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock."
> -Westwall
Click to expand...






Put the stuff in front that was excised out, namely the degradation in stealth due to rain (because the radars can track the hole in the rain).  That is specifically what i was referring to, and that was in regards to the B2.  You lie like a pro.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Put the stuff in front that was excised out, namely the degradation in stealth due to rain (because the radars can track the hole in the rain).  That is specifically what i was referring to, and that was in regards to the B2.


You can't lie your way out of this, the internet remembers. Here is the ENTIRE chain of quoted posts, started from HBH's that quoted nothing and was entirely original in content (red emphasis mine):

*HenryBHough:*
The F-35 started out as a good idea but then each of the services started making unique demands for specialization. Result was a "Swiss Army Knife" sort of airplane that might be able to do lots of things but NONE of them well. The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had. Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements. The Farnborough disgrace was occasioned by an unexplained engine fire that had grounded the few existing F-35s indefinitely

*Mushroom:*
But that is only 1 out of 3 models. And it has minimal impact on the other 2. And it was not the Marines demanding it, it was more the other way around. The Marines were more then willing to develop an updated version of the Harrier, but they were forced to buy into the F-35 program. However, to satisfy the needs of the Marines and replace both the F/A-18 and AV8B, they *had* to incorporate VSTOL capabilities. They can always simply authorize the Corps to go ahead with a new updated Harrier, and kill the F-35B program as far as many are concerned.

*WestWall:*
That is completely untrue. As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. *It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised*. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.


Ooops! With entire context it is quite obvious you are addressing the F-35 (not B-2) and criticizing it as not being a good interceptor because of compromised stealth. It takes a serious suspension of reality to claim you were talking about anything but the F-35 as an interceptor. You're trying to whitewash your previous foolishness, but you have to own it man. If you talk out of your ass that is on you forever.

Here is a screenshot of your post, if you want to pretend some was excised you'd have to be accusing of photoshop too:


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put the stuff in front that was excised out, namely the degradation in stealth due to rain (because the radars can track the hole in the rain).  That is specifically what i was referring to, and that was in regards to the B2.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't lie your way out of this, the internet remembers. Here is the ENTIRE chain of quoted posts, started from HBH's that quoted nothing and was entirely original in content (red emphasis mine):
> 
> *HenryBHough:*
> The F-35 started out as a good idea but then each of the services started making unique demands for specialization. Result was a "Swiss Army Knife" sort of airplane that might be able to do lots of things but NONE of them well. The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had. Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements. The Farnborough disgrace was occasioned by an unexplained engine fire that had grounded the few existing F-35s indefinitely
> 
> *Mushroom:*
> But that is only 1 out of 3 models. And it has minimal impact on the other 2. And it was not the Marines demanding it, it was more the other way around. The Marines were more then willing to develop an updated version of the Harrier, but they were forced to buy into the F-35 program. However, to satisfy the needs of the Marines and replace both the F/A-18 and AV8B, they *had* to incorporate VSTOL capabilities. They can always simply authorize the Corps to go ahead with a new updated Harrier, and kill the F-35B program as far as many are concerned.
> 
> *WestWall:*
> That is completely untrue. As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. *It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised*. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.
> 
> 
> Ooops! With entire context it is quite obvious you are addressing the F-35 (not B-2) and criticizing it as not being a good interceptor because of compromised stealth. It takes a serious suspension of reality to claim you were talking about anything but the F-35 as an interceptor. You're trying to whitewash your previous foolishness, but you have to own it man. If you talk out of your ass that is on you forever.
> 
> Here is a screenshot of your post, if you want to pretend some was excised you'd have to be accusing of photoshop too:
Click to expand...






Wrong silly boy, we were also talking about the B2 which I see you still have excised out of the string.  The context of the WHOLE conversation matters.  Leave it to a dishonest person, like you, to ignore context.


So, let me make it plain for you.  Based on the fact that the JSF is a series of compromises designed to enable the airframe to do as many jobs as possible, it CAN'T be superlative in ANY of them.  Yes, it will be a very good interceptor.  But it won't be as good as it could be if it were a dedicated airframe.  Thus the comment "it won't be a good interceptor" was specifically referring to the degradation in stealthiness that had been exposed when flying in rain.  THAT SPECIFIC case. 

In other words little silly person, you are picking and choosing from a whole host of comments and completely ignoring the reasoning behind them.  In other words you are a propagandist who isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.


----------



## DrainBamage

That was a pathetic attempt at spin.

HenryBHough clearly made a point on the three versions of the F-35 that had nothing to do with B-2s and rain or whatever else you're dreaming up, and you pounced on it to claim (ignorantly) that it wouldn't be a good interceptor. Now you're stuck, because there is too much evidence to the contrary and you hate being exposed as doing complete 180 on your viewpoint.

Your 180 was pretty funny, but watching a grown man attempting to play it off as being specifically about rain with a straight face is even funnier. Keep it coming, I've got popcorn.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Was never meant to be a super fighter .....and wont be one
Forget the F-35: Why America's Military Misses the F-14 Tomcat
The report notes that both the Super Hornet and the F-35C are severely challenged by new enemy fifth-generation fighter aircraft such as the Russian-built Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA and Chengdu J-20. Indeed, certain current adversary aircraft like the Russian Su-30SM, Su-35S and the Chinese J-11D and J-15 pose a serious threat to the Super Hornet fleet. It’s a view that shared by many industry officials, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and even U.S. Marine Corps aviators. “Both F/A-18E/Fs and F-35Cs will face significant deficiencies against supercruising, long-range, high-altitude, stealthy, large missile capacity adversary aircraft, such as the T-50, J-20, and follow-on aircraft,” the authors note. “These aircraft will be capable of effectively engaging current and projected U.S. carrier aircraft and penetrating defenses to engage high value units, such as AEW aircraft, ASW aircraft, and tankers. Already, the F/A-18E/F faces a severe speed disadvantage against Chinese J-11 aircraft, which can fire longer range missiles at a higher kinematic advantage outside of the range of U.S. AIM-120 missiles.”

Nor does the F-35C—which suffers from severely reduced acceleration compared to even the less than stellar performance of other JSF variants—help matters. “Similarly, the F-35C is optimized as an attack fighter, resulting in a medium-altitude flight profile, and its current ability to only carry two AIM- 120 missiles internally [until Block 3] limits its capability under complex electromagnetic conditions,” the authors wrote.


----------



## DrainBamage

Meh, that same author has written plenty of pieces over the years on the "F-35 can't fight" and "F-35 can't even beat the plane it's replacing" theme, which have been thoroughly debunked by dominant F-35 performances and dozens of pilot accounts to the contrary. That criticism of only carrying two AIM-120 is a perfect example of silliness. On one hand they are talking about threats from planes that are still in development stages as threats, while on the other worrying about current weapon load of F-35C even though it will have software allowing expanded weapons envelope by the time it is operational on CVN air wings. Are we really concerned a F-35C running Block 3i is going to enter combat?

Latest on Block 3F is that they completed testing of expanded flight envelope (mach 1.6, 9gs) in November 2016, and were continuing regression testing of weapons separation in December.  Goal for release is still Fall 2017, so expanded weapons (AIM-9X, SDB, JSOW, etc.), additional sensors integration, datalink imagery, navigation, and flight envelope should be available before Navy declares IOC sometime in 2018.

I know they are working on qualifying a rack that allows carrying 6 AMRAAMs internally instead of four but doubt release with Block 3F since that is hardware and all 3i planes are supposed to be upgradable to 3F with just software release.


----------



## I amso IR

No doubt that this article from Business Insider proves the F35 is a "loser". But then I suppose a kill ratio of 15 to 1 is a starting point.


*The F-35 just absolutely slaughtered the competition in its latest test*




Alex Lockie

 

2h
3,523

FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
TWITTER
EMAIL
Aviation Week reports that the Joint Strike fighter killed 15 aggressors for each F-35 downed. The F-35 achieved this remarkable ratio in a drastically increased threat environment that included radar jamming, increased air threats, and surface-to-air missile batteries. 

“In the past, the non-kinetic effects were not fully integrated into the kinetic fight,” Col. Robert Cole, the Air Forces Cyber Forward director, said in a statement.

But now F-35s take on cyber threats and electronic warfare in addition to enemy surveillance and conventional, or kinetic, threats.

“This integration in an exercise environment allows our planners and warfighters to understand how to best integrate these, learn their capabilities and limitations, and become ready to use [these combined resources for maximum] effect against our adversaries,” Cole said.






Staff Sgt. Darlene Seltmann/US Air Force

But the F-35s didn't just shoot down the enemy, they used their sensor-fusion and datalink abilities to talk to other planes and help them sniff out threats they would never have seen on their own. 

“Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out—now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time,” Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander, told Aviation Week.

“Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized. It’s a whole different world out there for us now.”

The ability for fifth-generation US aircraft to detect threats and send that information to legacy planes meets an urgent need for the US military.






Even after the F-35 runs out of missiles, it can still pass valuable targeting data to legacy planes laden with bombs and missiles. Jim Hazeltine/US Air Force

As adversarial nations like China and Russia constantly improve their counter-stealth abilities and air defenses, numbers increasingly matter.

The F-35 has repeatedly hit cost and schedule overruns during its production and is now years behind schedule. But the latest performance at Red Flag proves that even a handful of F-35s can improve an entire squadron's performance.

The current Red Flag exercise will conclude on February 10.


----------



## DrainBamage

I amso IR said:


> we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them


The ability to quickly geolocate threats using data fused from various sensors, along with precision targeting through weather using SAR is a huge advantage for F-35 over legacy aircraft.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Buying more F-35As over the next few years — while the program is still undergoing its development phase — could lead to higher than predicted retrofit costs in the early 2020s, when the Block 4 follow-on modernization program starts, said Maj. Gen. Jerry Harris, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for strategic plans, programs and requirements. Air Force official cautions against increasing F-35 buy rate  Alrdy got a bunch sitting around that need upgrading......ridiculous state of affairs when upgrades happen faster than useful airframes


----------



## DrainBamage

That makes sense, they have to way current war fighting requirements versus hardware retrofit costs for block 4 with the new faster computer.

I don't find it a ridiculous state of affairs though, has been the same with every fighter plane where retrofits happen into production.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> That makes sense, they have to way current war fighting requirements versus hardware retrofit costs for block 4 with the new faster computer.
> 
> I don't find it a ridiculous state of affairs though, has been the same with every fighter plane where retrofits happen into production.


Not four before it hits combat.....Trump is talking up Super hornet three buy again......which I think will happen since Naval version is doggiest of em all and current state of naval air arm


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Not four before it hits combat.....Trump is talking up Super hornet three buy again......which I think will happen since Naval version is doggiest of em all and current state of naval air arm


Actually, yes there have been plenty of aircraft that underwent several upgrades before seeing combat. I'm not even sure the significance of the "hits combat" thing, actually hitting combat is just an artificial goalpost with no significance here.

A-10 first flew in the early 70s, was full production by 1976, and didn't see combat until 15 years later in 1991. During that time they went through four upgrades to resolve airframe fatigue and wing cracking issues, upgraded to work with Pave Penny, upgraded to have inertial navigation, upgraded to have LASTE and ground collision warning, upgraded to have GPS navigation, upgraded to have mult-function display, and again more upgrades to wing structure. Is the A-10 included when you say no aircraft has had some upgrades before hitting combat?

F-22 first flew in the 90s, and hit combat as a JDAM chucker in Syria in 2014. During that time it was upgraded to use said JDAM, radar was upgraded to SAR, upgrades to facilitate electronic attack and drop SDB, upgrades to structure, infamous upgrade to oxygen system, and upgrade to lower maintenance stealth coating they have on F-35. Plenty of upgrades either planned or fully implemented before hitting combat.

Not sure what will happen with Trump and F-18/F-35, he's too unpredictable and nothing that comes out of his mouth can really be counted on to be truth versus rhetoric.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) says the outer wings of 32 carrier-based C-models need to be replaced to carry the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder, the aircraft’s primary dogfighting ... F-35C Needs New Outer Wings To Carry AIM-9X


----------



## DrainBamage

Same article points out they already have a fix designed that is currently undergoing flight testing. F-35C numbers are fairly limited right now so impact shouldn't be too great and fleet wide AIM-9X rollout is only moved back one month to Nov of this year. Navy is looking at IOC of their first squadron in 2018, which shouldn't be impacted by this either.

F-35C Needs New Outer Wings To Carry AIM-9X
Engineers have already produced an enhanced outer wing design, which is now undergoing flight testing. The issue has impacted the timeline for fielding AIM-9X, which is being rolled out for the Navy in Block 3F. “Once the new design is verified to provide the required strength, the fix will be implemented in production and retrofitted to existing aircraft by swapping existing outer wings with the redesigned ones,” Bogdan writes.

They are also testing a fix for the catapult issue, which involves changes to the launching system tension (as opposed to modifications to the plane) so we should be hearing about whether that is resolved shortly.


----------



## Manonthestreet

2019.....And oh btw there goes your "stealth "  the minute you put one on......


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> 2019.....And oh btw there goes your "stealth "  the minute you put one on......


Stealth isn't on/off, it is varying levels of low observability against radars depending on many factors. An F-35 with two AIM-9X doesn't magically become as stealthy as 4th gen aircraft, because most of the radar cross section is the aircraft itself. Given equal radars an F-35 with two external Sidewinders will still see a 4th gen aircraft way before it gets spotted.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2019.....And oh btw there goes your "stealth "  the minute you put one on......
> 
> 
> 
> Stealth isn't on/off, it is varying levels of low observability against radars depending on many factors. An F-35 with two AIM-9X doesn't magically become as stealthy as 4th gen aircraft, because most of the radar cross section is the aircraft itself. Given equal radars an F-35 with two external Sidewinders will still see a 4th gen aircraft way before it gets spotted.
Click to expand...

When you hang it on the wing its not stealthy anymore..........BTW its such a great platform they are just itching to use it against ISIS.....in a couple of yrs.......talk about lame...cant even go into a permissive enviro yet


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> When you hang it on the wing its not stealthy anymore..........BTW its such a great platform they are just itching to use it against ISIS.....in a couple of yrs.......talk about lame...cant even go into a permissive enviro yet


Again, stealthy isn't black and white. There is no on/off like you are implying, there is just degrees of RCS. An F-35, which by all accounts (and counter to your repeated incorrect claims in this forum) has a very small RCS, and while putting two relatively small missiles externally does increase it, is it still a lot smaller than it's opponent? Of course. Look at it this way:

F-35 (tiny RCS) + two sidewinders = what RCS?
SU=35 (not LO plane at all) + 6 much larger external missiles = what RCS?
F-16 (not LO plane) + two fuel tanks + pod + 2 sidewinders + 2 AMRAA = what RCS?

Of course the F-35 would have the smallest RCS of above aircraft, so given similar radars (of which F-35 has the most powerful anyway) the F-35 is STILL at a tremendous advantage in detection range.

I don't know what you're going on about with permissive environment, to be honest at times you sound almost desperate to criticize this plane even at the expense of common sense. They have been using F-22s in some areas because of long range SAM threat (non-permissive) to drop JDAMs and SDBs, and USAF F-35s are first coming online in Asia and Europe. When they have a squadron in the ME, they will probably use F-35s instead.

This whole "not seeing combat" thing is really a feeble angle to pursue given A-10, F-22, B-1, etc.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Typhoon has a .05....F-18 is a 1........thats vsm cross section.....what F-35 increases to with missiles cant find .....Even if it remains under F-18....the advantage of of buying it is miniscule......1 equals size of a man........
US stealth fighter jet can’t evade Russian radars | Veterans Today
Pentagon Worries That Russia Can Now Outshoot U.S. Stealth Jets


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you hang it on the wing its not stealthy anymore..........BTW its such a great platform they are just itching to use it against ISIS.....in a couple of yrs.......talk about lame...cant even go into a permissive enviro yet
> 
> 
> 
> Again, stealthy isn't black and white. There is no on/off like you are implying, there is just degrees of RCS. An F-35, which by all accounts (and counter to your repeated incorrect claims in this forum) has a very small RCS, and while putting two relatively small missiles externally does increase it, is it still a lot smaller than it's opponent? Of course. Look at it this way:
> 
> F-35 (tiny RCS) + two sidewinders = what RCS?
> SU=35 (not LO plane at all) + 6 much larger external missiles = what RCS?
> F-16 (not LO plane) + two fuel tanks + pod + 2 sidewinders + 2 AMRAA = what RCS?
> 
> Of course the F-35 would have the smallest RCS of above aircraft, so given similar radars (of which F-35 has the most powerful anyway) the F-35 is STILL at a tremendous advantage in detection range.
> 
> I don't know what you're going on about with permissive environment, to be honest at times you sound almost desperate to criticize this plane even at the expense of common sense. They have been using F-22s in some areas because of long range SAM threat (non-permissive) to drop JDAMs and SDBs, and USAF F-35s are first coming online in Asia and Europe. When they have a squadron in the ME, they will probably use F-35s instead.
> 
> This whole "not seeing combat" thing is really a feeble angle to pursue given A-10, F-22, B-1, etc.
Click to expand...

Gee didnt they declare it combat rdy yet they cant even send on a gravy run against isis


----------



## Manonthestreet

Thats well outside our missile range with top two....If enemy is higher your missile range shortens ......


----------



## Manonthestreet

Flanker Radars in Beyond Visual Range Air Combat


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Gee didnt they declare it combat rdy yet they cant even send on a gravy run against isis


You still aren't making any sense. They have a planned deployment of active squadrons fill in, none of which included one in the Middle East. By the very nature of a newish aircact that is rapidly expanding it's base most of early jets will be assigned to training squadrons, that makes the most sense right? The first (and only) operational deployment has been the USMC squadron in Japan, they only have 10 F-35Bs but will get the remaining 6 to bring it up to full strength this year. The second is the F-35As at Hill AFB. I believe the third will be Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211 based in Yuma but probably will deploy on an amphib.

One cannot conclude it "can't" do missions against ISIS just because there aren't in USAF squadrons operating in the Middle East yet, anymore than one could say the same thing about F-22 before they started using it in the ME theater. 

Like I said you seem to have a very determined mindset to spin everything as negative about this plane even if it isn't a rational complaint, I have no idea why. Is it just trying to stick to your guns at this point after all the claims of not stealthy can't fight etc. look more and more ridiculous?


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Thats well outside our missile range with top two....If enemy is higher your missile range shortens ......


Yes because an F-35 that detected a SU-35 first (it also has a powerful radar and much smaller RCS) is going to just fly straight at the SU-35 until it is finally picked up by their radar.

Oh yeah, they won't since that wouldn't make any sense. F-35 sees SU-35 first (again, both have powerful radars but F-35's RCS order of magnitude smaller than 70s era design) then moves into a position behind the SU-35 for a kill shot, SU-35 never knows F-35 is there until AMRAAM goes active within no-escape.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats well outside our missile range with top two....If enemy is higher your missile range shortens ......
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because an F-35 that detected a SU-35 first (it also has a powerful radar and much smaller RCS) is going to just fly straight at the SU-35 until it is finally picked up by their radar.
> 
> Oh yeah, they won't since that wouldn't make any sense. F-35 sees SU-35 first (again, both have powerful radars but F-35's RCS order of magnitude smaller than 70s era design) then moves into a position behind the SU-35 for a kill shot, SU-35 never knows F-35 is there until AMRAAM goes active within no-escape.
Click to expand...


The F-35A will enter the combat area with it's radar off.  It will be feeding off of other aircraft outside the attack range.  This includes both Air and Ground targets.  Once he switches his radar on, every radar detector known to man will see him.  The trick is to not use the radar unless you are out of range for attack.  Let your buddies do the searches and targeting.  That is just one scenario.  There are others and the F-35 pilots are just learning these new tactics.  It's tough to unlearn what you already know.


----------



## DrainBamage

Lockheed says in talks with Spain, Belgium, others on buying F-35s

"We are talking to several other countries - Switzerland, Belgium, Spain," Jeff Babione, Lockheed Martin's F-35 program leader, told reporters at the Avalon Airshow in Australia."There are quite a few other European nations that are looking at perhaps having the F-35 as an opportunity," Babione said. "We are starting to see other customers think about the F-35 being added to their fleet." Another person familiar with the discussions, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said that Finland was also in talks.

They are hearing the same shit as everyone else about how this plane performs and how it's cost is trending.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats well outside our missile range with top two....If enemy is higher your missile range shortens ......
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because an F-35 that detected a SU-35 first (it also has a powerful radar and much smaller RCS) is going to just fly straight at the SU-35 until it is finally picked up by their radar.
> 
> Oh yeah, they won't since that wouldn't make any sense. F-35 sees SU-35 first (again, both have powerful radars but F-35's RCS order of magnitude smaller than 70s era design) then moves into a position behind the SU-35 for a kill shot, SU-35 never knows F-35 is there until AMRAAM goes active within no-escape.
Click to expand...

Sounds very easy but it isn´t. Senseless claims of absolute superiority. No losses and bla bla bla. Nothing new. But always bs. See Zionists boasting of no losses while still losing their wars.

1982 Lebanon War - Wikipedia

Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses - Wikipedia


----------



## Manonthestreet

If it was so damn dominaNT at REDFLAG why will it take two three yrs just to confront ISIS with it????


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> If it was so damn dominaNT at REDFLAG why will it take two three yrs just to confront ISIS with it????



You are too busy making an ass of yourself.  It goes into that theater late this year or early next year. 

But the questions comes to mind, like WWII, the US made the decision to keep using the prop planes when Jets could have been put into service.  If you can use the old stuff and get the job done then it's foolish to use the new stuff.  In the ME, if it is working don't change it.  Unless you are one of the ones that have a saying of, "If it ain't broke, fix it.".


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was so damn dominaNT at REDFLAG why will it take two three yrs just to confront ISIS with it????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too busy making an ass of yourself.  It goes into that theater late this year or early next year.
> 
> But the questions comes to mind, like WWII, the US made the decision to keep using the prop planes when Jets could have been put into service.  If you can use the old stuff and get the job done then it's foolish to use the new stuff.  In the ME, if it is working don't change it.  Unless you are one of the ones that have a saying of, "If it ain't broke, fix it.".
Click to expand...

No it wont....2019 was what was just published


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> If it was so damn dominaNT at REDFLAG why will it take two three yrs just to confront ISIS with it????


Your strange hatred of this airplane has really pushed you into some zone where you are willing to put aside all common sense just to attack it. Again I ask what has driven you to this bizarre state, is it just wounded pride over all your "can't fight" "isn't stealthy" type posts from before?

For your question to be serious you'd need to believe two things:

1. The dominance at Red Flag was fake. They convinced hundreds of pilots and ground staff from a dozen countries to collude on some lie about the F-35s performance at Red Flag. This is in addition to the other exercises where it has dominated, and countless pilot accounts and surveys over it's performance. You might as well start posting in the conspiracy forum with all the mentally ill regulars there.

2. A plane that is only just starting to fill in active squadrons on a planned schedule, none of which are initially based in the Middle East, is somehow proof that this plane cannot function against ISIS. USAF has an operational squadron at Hill AFB. Standing up requires support and facilities on the ground, which they currently don't have in the Middle East and there is no urgent need for it. 

You might as well ask in 2012 if the F-22 was so damned dominant why were they afraid to use it in Libya? You're seriously lost your shit here on the F-35 thing dude, you need to take a step back and reaccess how much effort you want to continue putting into these ridiculous contortions because you really do look like an ass with this stuff. I have no idea how it got so personal with you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was so damn dominaNT at REDFLAG why will it take two three yrs just to confront ISIS with it????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too busy making an ass of yourself.  It goes into that theater late this year or early next year.
> 
> But the questions comes to mind, like WWII, the US made the decision to keep using the prop planes when Jets could have been put into service.  If you can use the old stuff and get the job done then it's foolish to use the new stuff.  In the ME, if it is working don't change it.  Unless you are one of the ones that have a saying of, "If it ain't broke, fix it.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wont....2019 was what was just published
Click to expand...


Because you said so?  I don't buy that.  How about a cite on this one.  You know, an official cite and not some crackpots opinion with an agenda.


----------



## DrainBamage

I think it will be interesting to see how far ManOnTheStreet is going to try to take this "F-35 can't perform" thing. Obviously the latest Red Flag results aren't enough since he's still countering it with the bizarre ME deployment logic. After a few more dominant exercises and dozens more pilots being interviewed saying how they can't see it will he still be in here stubbornly insisting it isn't stealthy and can't fight?

How long can stubbornness override common sense? Another year? Two years?


----------



## DrainBamage

F-35A Could Cost $80 Million With Multi-Year Orders, Lockheed Says

Lockheed Martin’s comment on potential unit costs of the F-35A follow a statement of the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, that a long-standing price target of $85 million in 2019 was not low enough. *The price in 2019-20 should be $80 million, **Bogdan said* at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon, Geelong, this week. The most recently negotiated figure, for production lot 10, is $94.6 million. These prices *include the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and compare with the $60-65 million unit price of the F-16*, a much smaller fighter, of 9.21 metric tons (20,300 lb.) empty weight. The F-35A’s empty weight is around 13.2 metric tons.

So much for the "three F-16s for the price of one F-35" bullshit that has been spouted in this thread. F-35A is already 94 million, on track for 85 million in 2019, and now they are talking about possibly 80 million. All this is unit price including the engine.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> F-35A Could Cost $80 Million With Multi-Year Orders, Lockheed Says
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s comment on potential unit costs of the F-35A follow a statement of the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, that a long-standing price target of $85 million in 2019 was not low enough. *The price in 2019-20 should be $80 million, **Bogdan said* at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon, Geelong, this week. The most recently negotiated figure, for production lot 10, is $94.6 million. These prices *include the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and compare with the $60-65 million unit price of the F-16*, a much smaller fighter, of 9.21 metric tons (20,300 lb.) empty weight. The F-35A’s empty weight is around 13.2 metric tons.
> 
> So much for the "three F-16s for the price of one F-35" bullshit that has been spouted in this thread. F-35A is already 94 million, on track for 85 million in 2019, and now they are talking about possibly 80 million. All this is unit price including the engine.



Careful, you might make boyinthealles head expload.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The second piece of the deployment was large force exercises and 4-ship training which is the core fighting force in the Eagle,” said Bladen. “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes. The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 "red air" fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio." 104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program

F-35s present here but no talk of how wonderful they did.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The second piece of the deployment was large force exercises and 4-ship training which is the core fighting force in the Eagle,” said Bladen. “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes. The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 "red air" fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio." 104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> F-35s present here but no talk of how wonderful they did.....



During the entire exercise, there were a total of 3 losses for the F-35.  One F-35A and 2 F-35Bs.  All losses were during Ground attack which is the highest threat level you can get in.  Not only are you being fired at by AA Assets, the Ground Assets with a real hardon for attack planes.  The level of defense against any ground attack bird asset at this Red Flag was far more intense than anything they will meet in actual combat.  Those 3 losses were the first day.  It was turned into a learning curve and the Blue Force adapted.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second piece of the deployment was large force exercises and 4-ship training which is the core fighting force in the Eagle,” said Bladen. “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes. The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 "red air" fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio." 104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> F-35s present here but no talk of how wonderful they did.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the entire exercise, there were a total of 3 losses for the F-35.  One F-35A and 2 F-35Bs.  All losses were during Ground attack which is the highest threat level you can get in.  Not only are you being fired at by AA Assets, the Ground Assets with a real hardon for attack planes.  The level of defense against any ground attack bird asset at this Red Flag was far more intense than anything they will meet in actual combat.  Those 3 losses were the first day.  It was turned into a learning curve and the Blue Force adapted.
Click to expand...

You got that from where.....you confusing this with Red Flag


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second piece of the deployment was large force exercises and 4-ship training which is the core fighting force in the Eagle,” said Bladen. “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes. The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 "red air" fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio." 104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> F-35s present here but no talk of how wonderful they did.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the entire exercise, there were a total of 3 losses for the F-35.  One F-35A and 2 F-35Bs.  All losses were during Ground attack which is the highest threat level you can get in.  Not only are you being fired at by AA Assets, the Ground Assets with a real hardon for attack planes.  The level of defense against any ground attack bird asset at this Red Flag was far more intense than anything they will meet in actual combat.  Those 3 losses were the first day.  It was turned into a learning curve and the Blue Force adapted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got that from where.....you confusing this with Red Flag
Click to expand...


Yes,  I got that from Red Flag.  The reason you don't see any combat by the F-35s in your exercise is that they were left on the ramp.  The F-15 has a shortage of qualified pilots.  By flying them in the F-15Ds and then the F-15Cs they certified more pilots this way.  And before you scream "Cite, Cite" that comes from your very own cite.  Your hatred for the F-35 is blinding you from everything else.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second piece of the deployment was large force exercises and 4-ship training which is the core fighting force in the Eagle,” said Bladen. “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes. The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 "red air" fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio." 104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> F-35s present here but no talk of how wonderful they did.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the entire exercise, there were a total of 3 losses for the F-35.  One F-35A and 2 F-35Bs.  All losses were during Ground attack which is the highest threat level you can get in.  Not only are you being fired at by AA Assets, the Ground Assets with a real hardon for attack planes.  The level of defense against any ground attack bird asset at this Red Flag was far more intense than anything they will meet in actual combat.  Those 3 losses were the first day.  It was turned into a learning curve and the Blue Force adapted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got that from where.....you confusing this with Red Flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,  I got that from Red Flag.  The reason you don't see any combat by the F-35s in your exercise is that they were left on the ramp.  The F-15 has a shortage of qualified pilots.  By flying them in the F-15Ds and then the F-15Cs they certified more pilots this way.  And before you scream "Cite, Cite" that comes from your very own cite.  Your hatred for the F-35 is blinding you from everything else.
Click to expand...

again with no link to back up your BS......ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second piece of the deployment was large force exercises and 4-ship training which is the core fighting force in the Eagle,” said Bladen. “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes. The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 "red air" fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio." 104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> F-35s present here but no talk of how wonderful they did.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the entire exercise, there were a total of 3 losses for the F-35.  One F-35A and 2 F-35Bs.  All losses were during Ground attack which is the highest threat level you can get in.  Not only are you being fired at by AA Assets, the Ground Assets with a real hardon for attack planes.  The level of defense against any ground attack bird asset at this Red Flag was far more intense than anything they will meet in actual combat.  Those 3 losses were the first day.  It was turned into a learning curve and the Blue Force adapted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got that from where.....you confusing this with Red Flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,  I got that from Red Flag.  The reason you don't see any combat by the F-35s in your exercise is that they were left on the ramp.  The F-15 has a shortage of qualified pilots.  By flying them in the F-15Ds and then the F-15Cs they certified more pilots this way.  And before you scream "Cite, Cite" that comes from your very own cite.  Your hatred for the F-35 is blinding you from everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again with no link to back up your BS......ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims
Click to expand...


From your own link    104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program

*104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program*

The 104th is made up of F-15C/D.  Not one single F-35 is in that unit.  They were there to qualify more F-15 Pilots and qualify some of the high time F-15 pilots for the F-22.  IT's your link.  Read it and weep.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second piece of the deployment was large force exercises and 4-ship training which is the core fighting force in the Eagle,” said Bladen. “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes. The last day of the trip we flew 4 F-15s and 4 F-22s against 14 "red air" fighters. For our training, we allowed the red air to regenerate after being killed by a blue air fighter. The final results of that mission: Blue Air killed 41 enemy aircraft and lost just one. While pretty phenomenal, perfection is our goal so the debrief focused on how we could have had a 41-0 ratio." 104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> F-35s present here but no talk of how wonderful they did.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the entire exercise, there were a total of 3 losses for the F-35.  One F-35A and 2 F-35Bs.  All losses were during Ground attack which is the highest threat level you can get in.  Not only are you being fired at by AA Assets, the Ground Assets with a real hardon for attack planes.  The level of defense against any ground attack bird asset at this Red Flag was far more intense than anything they will meet in actual combat.  Those 3 losses were the first day.  It was turned into a learning curve and the Blue Force adapted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got that from where.....you confusing this with Red Flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,  I got that from Red Flag.  The reason you don't see any combat by the F-35s in your exercise is that they were left on the ramp.  The F-15 has a shortage of qualified pilots.  By flying them in the F-15Ds and then the F-15Cs they certified more pilots this way.  And before you scream "Cite, Cite" that comes from your very own cite.  Your hatred for the F-35 is blinding you from everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again with no link to back up your BS......ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own link    104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> *104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program*
> 
> The 104th is made up of F-15C/D.  Not one single F-35 is in that unit.  They were there to qualify more F-15 Pilots and qualify some of the high time F-15 pilots for the F-22.  IT's your link.  Read it and weep.
Click to expand...

So who did they fly against.......LLMMAAOOO


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the entire exercise, there were a total of 3 losses for the F-35.  One F-35A and 2 F-35Bs.  All losses were during Ground attack which is the highest threat level you can get in.  Not only are you being fired at by AA Assets, the Ground Assets with a real hardon for attack planes.  The level of defense against any ground attack bird asset at this Red Flag was far more intense than anything they will meet in actual combat.  Those 3 losses were the first day.  It was turned into a learning curve and the Blue Force adapted.
> 
> 
> 
> You got that from where.....you confusing this with Red Flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,  I got that from Red Flag.  The reason you don't see any combat by the F-35s in your exercise is that they were left on the ramp.  The F-15 has a shortage of qualified pilots.  By flying them in the F-15Ds and then the F-15Cs they certified more pilots this way.  And before you scream "Cite, Cite" that comes from your very own cite.  Your hatred for the F-35 is blinding you from everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again with no link to back up your BS......ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own link    104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> *104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program*
> 
> The 104th is made up of F-15C/D.  Not one single F-35 is in that unit.  They were there to qualify more F-15 Pilots and qualify some of the high time F-15 pilots for the F-22.  IT's your link.  Read it and weep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who did they fly against.......LLMMAAOOO
Click to expand...


Themselves, fruitcake.  The Unit trained against high time pilots in F-15Cs.  The twist was adding the F-22 to the blue mix.  If you had your way, they would have been training against F-86s.  How would that work out for you.

They were training new F-15 Pilots including Pilots right out of flight school.  Damned, don't you read your own cites?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got that from where.....you confusing this with Red Flag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,  I got that from Red Flag.  The reason you don't see any combat by the F-35s in your exercise is that they were left on the ramp.  The F-15 has a shortage of qualified pilots.  By flying them in the F-15Ds and then the F-15Cs they certified more pilots this way.  And before you scream "Cite, Cite" that comes from your very own cite.  Your hatred for the F-35 is blinding you from everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again with no link to back up your BS......ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own link    104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> *104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program*
> 
> The 104th is made up of F-15C/D.  Not one single F-35 is in that unit.  They were there to qualify more F-15 Pilots and qualify some of the high time F-15 pilots for the F-22.  IT's your link.  Read it and weep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who did they fly against.......LLMMAAOOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Themselves, fruitcake.  The Unit trained against high time pilots in F-15Cs.  The twist was adding the F-22 to the blue mix.  If you had your way, they would have been training against F-86s.  How would that work out for you.
Click to expand...

Then the reults would not be as listed dumbass if you had  equal outfits


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,  I got that from Red Flag.  The reason you don't see any combat by the F-35s in your exercise is that they were left on the ramp.  The F-15 has a shortage of qualified pilots.  By flying them in the F-15Ds and then the F-15Cs they certified more pilots this way.  And before you scream "Cite, Cite" that comes from your very own cite.  Your hatred for the F-35 is blinding you from everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> again with no link to back up your BS......ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own link    104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program
> 
> *104th Fighter Wing Eagles on Target at United States Air Force's Weapons Systems Evaluation Program*
> 
> The 104th is made up of F-15C/D.  Not one single F-35 is in that unit.  They were there to qualify more F-15 Pilots and qualify some of the high time F-15 pilots for the F-22.  IT's your link.  Read it and weep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who did they fly against.......LLMMAAOOO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Themselves, fruitcake.  The Unit trained against high time pilots in F-15Cs.  The twist was adding the F-22 to the blue mix.  If you had your way, they would have been training against F-86s.  How would that work out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the reults would not be as listed dumbass if you had  equal outfits
Click to expand...


The results are worthless.  They aren't there to win or lose.  They are there to train new pilots.  When you come to that part, do you cover your eyes and start screaming "La La La, I can't Hear you" over and over.


----------



## Manonthestreet

“With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes.    Those other Airframes were the others listed....not themselves duhhhhhh


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes.    Those other Airframes were the others listed....not themselves duhhhhhh



And how do you know this?  OUtside of the F-22 who were there to qualify F-15 Pilots to the F-22, all the F-15s were from the same unit.  They were there to train new Pilots, not compete in some contest like you keep harping.  Read your own cite for a change.  And leave the blackout pen.  It's screwing up your monitor.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes.    Those other Airframes were the others listed....not themselves duhhhhhh



They are firing live weapons.  They are flying against target drones.  I suppose you want to keep track of the drone kills and let them fire back with live weapons as well.  What the heck, I thought we got rid of the "Learn or Die" since the P-38s early days of just dumping a pilot in the cockpit and sending them to war.   How'd that work out for us?  Things change.  Shooting using computer data is fine at Red Flag but firing live weapons at a target is quite another thing.  You get to smell the napalm in the morning.

You think all flyoffs are against other Aircraft.  When live weapons are used, only a complete marrooon like you would want to see training done that way.  A F-15C costs about 110 mil.  A seasoned pilot costs years and millions.  But I guess you think that they need to "Learn or Die".


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes.    Those other Airframes were the others listed....not themselves duhhhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are firing live weapons.  They are flying against target drones.  I suppose you want to keep track of the drone kills and let them fire back with live weapons as well.  What the heck, I thought we got rid of the "Learn or Die" since the P-38s early days of just dumping a pilot in the cockpit and sending them to war.   How'd that work out for us?  Things change.  Shooting using computer data is fine at Red Flag but firing live weapons at a target is quite another thing.  You get to smell the napalm in the morning.
> 
> You think all flyoffs are against other Aircraft.  When live weapons are used, only a complete marrooon like you would want to see training done that way.  A F-15C costs about 110 mil.  A seasoned pilot costs years and millions.  But I guess you think that they need to "Learn or Die".
Click to expand...

target drones dont "regenerate"....oooops......didnt read did ya


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims


Come on dude, you're the one who's been saying over and over that the F-35 isn't stealthy, too slow to fight, will get our pilots killed. Yet this plane has been dominating in exercises, partly because ground radar and other aircraft can't find it, and because of the sensor systems you dismiss in favor of an irrational obsession with max clean altitude and speed.

So you're desperately hanging on by trying to imply some vast conspiracy among the hundreds of pilots, ground controllers, etc. from various nations to lie about it's capabilities. You're clearly emotionally vested in this since you're throwing common sense out the window to stubbornly stick to your guns.

At the very least it will be amusing going forward as results continue to overwhelm the bs from skeptics who have never flown the plane, and how long you'll keep on clinging to your views since it (and you) will look more ridiculous over time.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes.    Those other Airframes were the others listed....not themselves duhhhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are firing live weapons.  They are flying against target drones.  I suppose you want to keep track of the drone kills and let them fire back with live weapons as well.  What the heck, I thought we got rid of the "Learn or Die" since the P-38s early days of just dumping a pilot in the cockpit and sending them to war.   How'd that work out for us?  Things change.  Shooting using computer data is fine at Red Flag but firing live weapons at a target is quite another thing.  You get to smell the napalm in the morning.
> 
> You think all flyoffs are against other Aircraft.  When live weapons are used, only a complete marrooon like you would want to see training done that way.  A F-15C costs about 110 mil.  A seasoned pilot costs years and millions.  But I guess you think that they need to "Learn or Die".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> target drones dont "regenerate"....oooops......didnt read did ya
Click to expand...


That is only part of the exercise.  For the most part, it's as much about the equipment as it is the pilot.  You can't get the same experience flying a sim or electronically tagging your target like you can shooting the real thing.  You used the "Last" day as it the rest of it wasn't important.   Sure am glad you aren't training pilots.  We would end up with a lot of lost Airframes and dead pilots. 

If they were to use the F-35A as a Red Force, the F-22 would bag almost everyone of them while the F-15 holds back and becomes missile trucks.  Just how long do you think the F-16 would last with those two flying like that.  BTW, that is EXACTLY the way they fly.  And so  does the F-16/F-35 duo fly the same way.  The F-16 becomes the missile truck.  But pitting the F-35/F-16 against two of the worlds best Air to Air Fighters working in tandem is just a turkey shoot.  It's not that the F-35A/F-16C can't handle all but the F-22/F-15C combo.  They can.

No existing duo of Aircraft can stand up to the F-22/F-15C combo.  And only the F-22/F-15C combo can defeat the F-35A/F-16C combo.  This is why they have paired them up like that.  They train that way.

And yes, Lucy, they are firing live ordinance at Target Drones and QFs so each and everyone of the pilots can get qualified on the real thing.  You take the last day and make it sound like the F-22/F-15C is going against the F-16C/F-35A combo the entire time.  Not and get a 41 to zip score they aren't.  The F-35A is still going to get it's licks on some of the F-22s while the F-16 will get some of it's licks on the F-15 as long as they don't use the F-15 solely as a missile truck.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ITs not hatred its informed skepticism of bs claims
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, you're the one who's been saying over and over that the F-35 isn't stealthy, too slow to fight, will get our pilots killed. Yet this plane has been dominating in exercises, partly because ground radar and other aircraft can't find it, and because of the sensor systems you dismiss in favor of an irrational obsession with max clean altitude and speed.
> 
> So you're desperately hanging on by trying to imply some vast conspiracy among the hundreds of pilots, ground controllers, etc. from various nations to lie about it's capabilities. You're clearly emotionally vested in this since you're throwing common sense out the window to stubbornly stick to your guns.
> 
> At the very least it will be amusing going forward as results continue to overwhelm the bs from skeptics who have never flown the plane, and how long you'll keep on clinging to your views since it (and you) will look more ridiculous over time.
Click to expand...


It is hard to imagine him to become even more ridiculous but I think he will make the grade on the ridiculous scale.  Just when we think he's maxed it out he will find a way to get even more ridiculous.  I have faith in him.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes.    Those other Airframes were the others listed....not themselves duhhhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are firing live weapons.  They are flying against target drones.  I suppose you want to keep track of the drone kills and let them fire back with live weapons as well.  What the heck, I thought we got rid of the "Learn or Die" since the P-38s early days of just dumping a pilot in the cockpit and sending them to war.   How'd that work out for us?  Things change.  Shooting using computer data is fine at Red Flag but firing live weapons at a target is quite another thing.  You get to smell the napalm in the morning.
> 
> You think all flyoffs are against other Aircraft.  When live weapons are used, only a complete marrooon like you would want to see training done that way.  A F-15C costs about 110 mil.  A seasoned pilot costs years and millions.  But I guess you think that they need to "Learn or Die".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> target drones dont "regenerate"....oooops......didnt read did ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is only part of the exercise.  For the most part, it's as much about the equipment as it is the pilot.  You can't get the same experience flying a sim or electronically tagging your target like you can shooting the real thing.  You used the "Last" day as it the rest of it wasn't important.   Sure am glad you aren't training pilots.  We would end up with a lot of lost Airframes and dead pilots.
> 
> If they were to use the F-35A as a Red Force, the F-22 would bag almost everyone of them while the F-15 holds back and becomes missile trucks.  Just how long do you think the F-16 would last with those two flying like that.  BTW, that is EXACTLY the way they fly.  And so  does the F-16/F-35 duo fly the same way.  The F-16 becomes the missile truck.  But pitting the F-35/F-16 against two of the worlds best Air to Air Fighters working in tandem is just a turkey shoot.  It's not that the F-35A/F-16C can't handle all but the F-22/F-15C combo.  They can.
> 
> No existing duo of Aircraft can stand up to the F-22/F-15C combo.  And only the F-22/F-15C combo can defeat the F-35A/F-16C combo.  This is why they have paired them up like that.  They train that way.
> 
> And yes, Lucy, they are firing live ordinance at Target Drones and QFs so each and everyone of the pilots can get qualified on the real thing.  You take the last day and make it sound like the F-22/F-15C is going against the F-16C/F-35A combo the entire time.  Not and get a 41 to zip score they aren't.  The F-35A is still going to get it's licks on some of the F-22s while the F-16 will get some of it's licks on the F-15 as long as they don't use the F-15 solely as a missile truck.
Click to expand...

Ive never seen someone talk so much bs in direct contradiction of plain text...give it up man.......


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> It is hard to imagine him to become even more ridiculous


Agreed, actual events are definitely overriding most of the BS speculation about the plane (of which ManOnTheStreet was a big believer), he'll have to keep stretching farther and farther into illogical reasoning to stubbornly hold on to his position. 

In fact I'll go ahead and predict we'll get a "I'm done with this thread" post eventually.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> “With several other fighter airframes on the Gulf Coast, we were able to put together daily outnumbered scenarios that we cannot produce up here at Barnes.    Those other Airframes were the others listed....not themselves duhhhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are firing live weapons.  They are flying against target drones.  I suppose you want to keep track of the drone kills and let them fire back with live weapons as well.  What the heck, I thought we got rid of the "Learn or Die" since the P-38s early days of just dumping a pilot in the cockpit and sending them to war.   How'd that work out for us?  Things change.  Shooting using computer data is fine at Red Flag but firing live weapons at a target is quite another thing.  You get to smell the napalm in the morning.
> 
> You think all flyoffs are against other Aircraft.  When live weapons are used, only a complete marrooon like you would want to see training done that way.  A F-15C costs about 110 mil.  A seasoned pilot costs years and millions.  But I guess you think that they need to "Learn or Die".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> target drones dont "regenerate"....oooops......didnt read did ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is only part of the exercise.  For the most part, it's as much about the equipment as it is the pilot.  You can't get the same experience flying a sim or electronically tagging your target like you can shooting the real thing.  You used the "Last" day as it the rest of it wasn't important.   Sure am glad you aren't training pilots.  We would end up with a lot of lost Airframes and dead pilots.
> 
> If they were to use the F-35A as a Red Force, the F-22 would bag almost everyone of them while the F-15 holds back and becomes missile trucks.  Just how long do you think the F-16 would last with those two flying like that.  BTW, that is EXACTLY the way they fly.  And so  does the F-16/F-35 duo fly the same way.  The F-16 becomes the missile truck.  But pitting the F-35/F-16 against two of the worlds best Air to Air Fighters working in tandem is just a turkey shoot.  It's not that the F-35A/F-16C can't handle all but the F-22/F-15C combo.  They can.
> 
> No existing duo of Aircraft can stand up to the F-22/F-15C combo.  And only the F-22/F-15C combo can defeat the F-35A/F-16C combo.  This is why they have paired them up like that.  They train that way.
> 
> And yes, Lucy, they are firing live ordinance at Target Drones and QFs so each and everyone of the pilots can get qualified on the real thing.  You take the last day and make it sound like the F-22/F-15C is going against the F-16C/F-35A combo the entire time.  Not and get a 41 to zip score they aren't.  The F-35A is still going to get it's licks on some of the F-22s while the F-16 will get some of it's licks on the F-15 as long as they don't use the F-15 solely as a missile truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive never seen someone talk so much bs in direct contradiction of plain text...give it up man.......
Click to expand...


What's the matter, you don't read your own cites?  Well, I can't help that, now can I.  When Facts get in your way, you just start making it up as you go.  

Did the mean ol' Retired Air Force Dude throw facts over your BS?  Get over it already.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard to imagine him to become even more ridiculous
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, actual events are definitely overriding most of the BS speculation about the plane (of which ManOnTheStreet was a big believer), he'll have to keep stretching farther and farther into illogical reasoning to stubbornly hold on to his position.
> 
> In fact I'll go ahead and predict we'll get a "I'm done with this thread" post eventually.
Click to expand...


What's even sadder, the article he quoted had nothing really to do with the F-35 Performance.  It's about the F-15C and F-22 training together to become a force NO Military can equal much less best.  And it's about training new fighter pilots for the F-15C which doesn't have enough combat qualified pilots at this time.  Kudos to the 141st.

And if he were to do what you say he will, he would have done it long ago.  In fact, it's a shame that the powers in the background just don't lock the string so we can get to other things.  This has gone on longer than is healthy.  I guess the "Powers that Be" like to see us beat the hell out of the kid.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Ive never seen someone talk so much bs in direct contradiction of plain text...give it up man.......


Quite ironic you saying this, given your current mantra is that F-35's dominance has only been in exercises and it can't be judged as successful since hasn't seen combat. Here are some posts you made defending F-22 before it ever saw combat, and of course it still has never seen air-to-air combat:



Manonthestreet said:


> *F-22 has an 18-1 kill ratio vs F-15 in training.*





Manonthestreet said:


> *F-22 would smoke F-16. *



Strange eh? F-35's dominance at 20-1 can be dismissed since just an exercise, but hey there you are pointing out F-22 kill ratio in exercises. F-35 can't be evaluated against other aircraft since hasn't seen combat, but I guess that was okay for F-22. Perfect examples of how you are so vested in criticizing this plane you are willing to put aside common sense and set completely different standards on how it can be judged.

It will only get harder for you here trying to defend your "F-35 can't fight" position and I think you know it and hate it. At his point you're just posting on stubbornness and false pride, it is almost a spectacle.

-


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Low, slow, and fat = dead.  Always has always will.   Not any more complicated than that.  f-35 is outclassed by those 30 yr old outdated designs.


20-1



Manonthestreet said:


> They have and its ugly and pilots are going to get waxed.


20-1



Manonthestreet said:


> all points to dead on arrival if you have the misfortune to be in one.


20-1



Manonthestreet said:


> Just the facts....your non stealthy low and slow bomb wagon is a death trap


20-1


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Not referencing myself .....Reffing the planes known specs......duh


There are no officially published specs on the F-35's RCS, it is almost cute that someone is naive enough to think so. There are estimates from armchair experts on internet forums, there are references to it being the same as a marble or golf ball or whatever that were first floated about before the plane even flew, but there are no military specifications published for F-35 (or F-22, or B-2, etc.) of it's exact RCS. If you took the time to follow the references your blogs make about F-35 RCS you will find they lead back and forth to each other as sources, nowhere else. All your arguments that the plane isn't stealthy are based on conjecture by blog writers who have no actual experience with the F-35, and are directly contradicted by it's performance in air-to-air and air-to-ground exercises.

Even the climb rate, turn rate, and  top speed are minimum program requirements and software limitations as opposed actual known performance maximums. An F-35C has more aerodynamic drag and weighs 20% more than an F-35A, do you really think they both can fly max mach 1.6 with the exact same engine? Of course not, only a fool would ponder that and decide they have same top speed characteristics. All we know is all models can fly at least mach 1.6, but the actual top speed of each model is only known by current software limitations.

You also are oblivious to external carriage penalties for other aircraft where you are constantly swooning over the top speed and altitude. You ignore the fact that fighters are usually flying at their optimal cruising altitude and at transonic speeds, it would make no sense for Mr. SU-35 to go happily flying along at full afterburner and max altitude because he'd run out of fuel and could hardly turn.  An SU-35 with an air combat loadout of 6-8 missiles (Russia typically makes huge missiles, R-27 is 13.4' long and 9.1" diameter) isn't flying anywhere near it's clean top speed or clean max altitude. So all your fantasies of some SU-35 zipping along at mach 2.2 at 60k feet make no sense if it is on an actual combat mission and carrying ordnance to prosecute said combat mission. F-35 drag and RCS penalties in Block 4 with six AMRAAMs? Zero.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not referencing myself .....Reffing the planes known specs......duh
> 
> 
> 
> There are no officially published specs on the F-35's RCS, it is almost cute that someone is naive enough to think so. There are estimates from armchair experts on internet forums, there are references to it being the same as a marble or golf ball or whatever that were first floated about before the plane even flew, but there are no military specifications published for F-35 (or F-22, or B-2, etc.) of it's exact RCS. If you took the time to follow the references your blogs make about F-35 RCS you will find they lead back and forth to each other as sources, nowhere else. All your arguments that the plane isn't stealthy are based on conjecture by blog writers who have no actual experience with the F-35, and are directly contradicted by it's performance in air-to-air and air-to-ground exercises.
> 
> Even the climb rate, turn rate, and  top speed are minimum program requirements and software limitations as opposed actual known performance maximums. An F-35C has more aerodynamic drag and weighs 20% more than an F-35A, do you really think they both can fly max mach 1.6 with the exact same engine? Of course not, only a fool would ponder that and decide they have same top speed characteristics. All we know is all models can fly at least mach 1.6, but the actual top speed of each model is only known by current software limitations.
> 
> You also are oblivious to external carriage penalties for other aircraft where you are constantly swooning over the top speed and altitude. You ignore the fact that fighters are usually flying at their optimal cruising altitude and at transonic speeds, it would make no sense for Mr. SU-35 to go happily flying along at full afterburner and max altitude because he'd run out of fuel and could hardly turn.  An SU-35 with an air combat loadout of 6-8 missiles (Russia typically makes huge missiles, R-27 is 13.4' long and 9.1" diameter) isn't flying anywhere near it's clean top speed or clean max altitude. So all your fantasies of some SU-35 zipping along at mach 2.2 at 60k feet make no sense if it is on an actual combat mission and carrying ordnance to prosecute said combat mission. F-35 drag and RCS penalties in Block 4 with six AMRAAMs? Zero.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to make his head explode?  How dare you to use facts and figures that are known and discounting those that aren't known.  

The F-16 in the original test was loaded with 2 wing tanks to give him the duration needed to match the F-35-A2.  While they had the A2 limited to 6.5g and Max 1.6, the poor overloaded F-16 (normally a mach 2 and a 9+G) would be lucky to get mach 1.3 and a 7.5g load.  Now, put missiles on the F-16 to equal that of a production F-35A and you drop it down to barely supersonic with about a 6g load.  And I am probably being kind.

If a F-15C were to tangle with a SU-35, the F-15 is going to force the fight to just under supersonic speed.  This completely negates the thrust vectoring on the SU-35.  It works only at lower speeds and air shows.  It's just about worthless in combat unless the F-15C pilot gets very stupid very quickly.  The fight is going to be somewhere between 7 to 9+ gs for both of them.  Here is the rub, the SU-35 must stay in the fight.  The F-15C can elect to disengage if needs arise.  The F-15C is quite a bit faster.  Here is a bit of info.  The F-15C and do a Mach 2.5 sprint if it needs to.  But that's not it's highest thrust setting.  It has a V-Max setting that no one but a few know the real  top speed.  Of course, he's going to be spitting engine parts out but he can get away.  The SU-35 has to win to survive and can't disengage if things go bad.  
If either one of them decides to boogey out, they are going to have to jettisen their entire missile load.  The F-15C and elect to save 2 and keep up with the fleeing SU-35.  AS I said, the SU-35 is there for the duration no matter what.

There's a lot of life in the old F-15C.


----------



## Manonthestreet

at the Navy’s League’s Sea Air Space 2017 convention and exhibition, The War Zone learned ATK Orbital believes its Hatchet and Hammer miniature bombs might be a good fit for Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The jets sorely need more firepower in their stealthiest configuration, but they still can't attack fast-moving targets on the ground _at all_, a key capability for aircraft supporting troops on the ground. Miniature Smart Bombs Could Help Give the F-35 Firepower It Desperately Needs
Brilliant...for a strike aircraft stuffed with all the newest and best this is incomprehensible, Projected fix 2020 or later......


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> The jets sorely need more firepower in their stealthiest configuration, but they still can't attack fast-moving targets on the ground _at all_, a key capability for aircraft supporting troops on the ground


In what has become pretty much the norm for you in this thread, you have your facts wrong.

In stealth configuration F-35 will carry eight SDBs, which is plenty of firepower. With eight SDBs it can hit more targets than an F-16 or F-18 is able to engage, while remaining in stealth mode.

F-35 can indeed hit fast-moving targets, the pilot just has to manually lead the target like they were trained to do since in in IOC the F-35 it has the decades old GBU-12. DoD is buying an alternate 500 lb class PGM where the bomb leads the target automatically, this is a stopgap until SDB2 which has a tri-mode seeker to hit just about anything moving on land or water.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jets sorely need more firepower in their stealthiest configuration, but they still can't attack fast-moving targets on the ground _at all_, a key capability for aircraft supporting troops on the ground
> 
> 
> 
> In what has become pretty much the norm for you in this thread, you have your facts wrong.
> 
> In stealth configuration F-35 will carry eight SDBs, which is plenty of firepower. With eight SDBs it can hit more targets than an F-16 or F-18 is able to engage, while remaining in stealth mode.
> 
> F-35 can indeed hit fast-moving targets, the pilot just has to manually lead the target like they were trained to do since in in IOC the F-35 it has the decades old GBU-12. DoD is buying an alternate 500 lb class PGM where the bomb leads the target automatically, this is a stopgap until SDB2 which has a tri-mode seeker to hit just about anything moving on land or water.
Click to expand...

Not my facts.....Nice try though........any more lies


----------



## Picaro

I get to watch F-35's fly around most of the day here. They haven't had to dump any into the lake yet, and they are obviously maneuverable, which is always a good sign. Don't know why there is all this hate directed at it, I guess the expense is really the problem, and all the whining is just smoke over that.


----------



## Manonthestreet

2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> at the Navy’s League’s Sea Air Space 2017 convention and exhibition, The War Zone learned ATK Orbital believes its Hatchet and Hammer miniature bombs might be a good fit for Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The jets sorely need more firepower in their stealthiest configuration, but they still can't attack fast-moving targets on the ground _at all_, a key capability for aircraft supporting troops on the ground. Miniature Smart Bombs Could Help Give the F-35 Firepower It Desperately Needs
> Brilliant...for a strike aircraft stuffed with all the newest and best this is incomprehensible, Projected fix 2020 or later......



NOthing is perfect.  And they are already testing with the new munitions.  The A model can already carry the current smaller stuff but the B and C have shorter bays and really do need those mods and munitions bad.

Before you go off, the Marines are keeping the AV8Bs around longer than they wanted.  Not due to the F-35B but due to the sad condition of the F-18Cs with no F-18Es on the horizon.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Picaro said:


> I get to watch F-35's fly around most of the day here. They haven't had to dump any into the lake yet, and they are obviously maneuverable, which is always a good sign. Don't know why there is all this hate directed at it, I guess the expense is really the problem, and all the whining is just smoke over that.



I agree with you.  But we have tried to explain new weapons systems to Mano but he's stubborn.  I wonder if he is an employee of Boeing.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get to watch F-35's fly around most of the day here. They haven't had to dump any into the lake yet, and they are obviously maneuverable, which is always a good sign. Don't know why there is all this hate directed at it, I guess the expense is really the problem, and all the whining is just smoke over that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  But we have tried to explain new weapons systems to Mano but he's stubborn.  I wonder if he is an employee of Boeing.
Click to expand...

Ive often wondered who you were pimping your tripe for


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get to watch F-35's fly around most of the day here. They haven't had to dump any into the lake yet, and they are obviously maneuverable, which is always a good sign. Don't know why there is all this hate directed at it, I guess the expense is really the problem, and all the whining is just smoke over that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  But we have tried to explain new weapons systems to Mano but he's stubborn.  I wonder if he is an employee of Boeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive often wondered who you were pimping your tripe for
Click to expand...


I don't even own a Caddie and hate heavy furs in the summer time


----------



## Picaro

Manonthestreet said:


> 2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh



What? Obviously they do 'work', or there wouldn't be any flying around.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Picaro said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Obviously they do 'work', or there wouldn't be any flying around.
Click to expand...

Everyone you've built so far requires fixing.....and......after 2 decades 
Report suggests US offers Lockheed 'multiyear' deal for F-35 joint strike fighter
Yet Grazier said the F-35 joint strike fighter program "legally does not qualify for a block buy.


----------



## Picaro

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> at the Navy’s League’s Sea Air Space 2017 convention and exhibition, The War Zone learned ATK Orbital believes its Hatchet and Hammer miniature bombs might be a good fit for Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The jets sorely need more firepower in their stealthiest configuration, but they still can't attack fast-moving targets on the ground _at all_, a key capability for aircraft supporting troops on the ground. Miniature Smart Bombs Could Help Give the F-35 Firepower It Desperately Needs
> Brilliant...for a strike aircraft stuffed with all the newest and best this is incomprehensible, Projected fix 2020 or later......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing is perfect.  And they are already testing with the new munitions.  The A model can already carry the current smaller stuff but the B and C have shorter bays and really do need those mods and munitions bad.
> 
> Before you go off, the Marines are keeping the AV8Bs around longer than they wanted.  Not due to the F-35B but due to the sad condition of the F-18Cs with no F-18Es on the horizon.
Click to expand...


The ones designed for the Israelis had the larger weapons bays, I think. They usually mod their aircraft some more when they get them home, of course. If they had any doubts about theirs they would have gone with another aircraft; their existential realities don't leave them room for taking crap that doesn't work for them for their own forces. They take a few because of their policy of readiness to take in and fully service U.S. force planes at their bases, so they use some for training ground and maintenance crews, so they wouldn't have ordered a specific design re weapons bays if they were only buying a few for training.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Picaro said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> at the Navy’s League’s Sea Air Space 2017 convention and exhibition, The War Zone learned ATK Orbital believes its Hatchet and Hammer miniature bombs might be a good fit for Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The jets sorely need more firepower in their stealthiest configuration, but they still can't attack fast-moving targets on the ground _at all_, a key capability for aircraft supporting troops on the ground. Miniature Smart Bombs Could Help Give the F-35 Firepower It Desperately Needs
> Brilliant...for a strike aircraft stuffed with all the newest and best this is incomprehensible, Projected fix 2020 or later......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing is perfect.  And they are already testing with the new munitions.  The A model can already carry the current smaller stuff but the B and C have shorter bays and really do need those mods and munitions bad.
> 
> Before you go off, the Marines are keeping the AV8Bs around longer than they wanted.  Not due to the F-35B but due to the sad condition of the F-18Cs with no F-18Es on the horizon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ones designed for the Israelis had the larger weapons bays, I think. They usually mod their aircraft some more when they get them home, of course. If they had any doubts about theirs they would have gone with another aircraft; their existential realities don't leave them room for taking crap that doesn't work for them for their own forces. They take a few because of their policy of readiness to take in and fully service U.S. force planes at their bases, so they use some for training ground and maintenance crews, so they wouldn't have ordered a specific design re weapons bays if they were only buying a few for training.
Click to expand...


The A is designed without any thought of the fan space so it gets a slightly longer bay.  The B gets the fan so it has a slightly shorter bay.  Meanwhile, the C uses the bay for the Fan for extra fuel giving it more range.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Manonthestreet said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Obviously they do 'work', or there wouldn't be any flying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone you've built so far requires fixing.....and......after 2 decades
> Report suggests US offers Lockheed 'multiyear' deal for F-35 joint strike fighter
> Yet Grazier said the F-35 joint strike fighter program "legally does not qualify for a block buy.
Click to expand...

Whats funny about failure???


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Obviously they do 'work', or there wouldn't be any flying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone you've built so far requires fixing.....and......after 2 decades
> Report suggests US offers Lockheed 'multiyear' deal for F-35 joint strike fighter
> Yet Grazier said the F-35 joint strike fighter program "legally does not qualify for a block buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats funny about failure???
Click to expand...


The only failure is yours.  The B and the A are both operational.  The A has gone to overseas AFs and they are tickled to get them.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Obviously they do 'work', or there wouldn't be any flying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone you've built so far requires fixing.....and......after 2 decades
> Report suggests US offers Lockheed 'multiyear' deal for F-35 joint strike fighter
> Yet Grazier said the F-35 joint strike fighter program "legally does not qualify for a block buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats funny about failure???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only failure is yours.  The B and the A are both operational.  The A has gone to overseas AFs and they are tickled to get them.
Click to expand...

thats the talking point anyway.............still not legal for a block buy which is why you will get Super 18's......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Obviously they do 'work', or there wouldn't be any flying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone you've built so far requires fixing.....and......after 2 decades
> Report suggests US offers Lockheed 'multiyear' deal for F-35 joint strike fighter
> Yet Grazier said the F-35 joint strike fighter program "legally does not qualify for a block buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats funny about failure???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only failure is yours.  The B and the A are both operational.  The A has gone to overseas AFs and they are tickled to get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats the talking point anyway.............still not legal for a block buy which is why you will get Super 18's......
Click to expand...


When dealing with either the F-18 or 35 or any other AC for that matter, it's not Block Buy, it's MVP.  It won't apply to either the new Super/Super Hornet or the F-35.  Annual Contracts are to be used since the prices may go up (In the Super/Super Hornets case) or in the F-35 (where the price will go down).


----------



## Picaro

Manonthestreet said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 decades and it still doesn't work might be good reason eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Obviously they do 'work', or there wouldn't be any flying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone you've built so far requires fixing.....and......after 2 decades
> Report suggests US offers Lockheed 'multiyear' deal for F-35 joint strike fighter
> Yet Grazier said the F-35 joint strike fighter program "legally does not qualify for a block buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats funny about failure???
Click to expand...


Your failure isn't funny?


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Not my facts.....Nice try though........any more lies


The usual non-response from someone incapable of supporting their previous post. 

Fact = F-35 will carry eight SDBs in stealth configuration, so it isn't limited in how many targets it can hit compared to other fighters. The B-model will initially be limited to four but they are going to make some minor modifications to the F-35B weapons bay to allow eight. 

Fact = F-35 pilots can hit moving targets by leading with laser, just as F-16/F-15/F-18 pilots did in the Gulf War with same GBU-12. Newer weapons do this automatically, but that doesn't mean your claim that F-35 can't hit a moving target with LGB is true, it just means you are naive.

 If you'd like to prove this wrong be my guest.


----------



## DrainBamage

Picaro said:


> Don't know why there is all this hate directed at it, I guess the expense is really the problem, and all the whining is just smoke over that.


It became trendy among some defense blogs to constantly swipe at the F-35 as it's development came on late and over budget, and this went so far that some people (like ManOnTheStreet) became emotionally attached to the anti-F35 thing. You can usually spot these types because constantly make statements that are clearly false or greatly exaggerated to pursue this bizarre vendetta against an airplane.

As examples from ManOnTheStreet, he has claimed:

1. It doesn't work.
Obviously you see them flying around, as have millions of other people at airshows

2. It isn't stealthy
In exercises the pilots have commented that they had to turn their transponders on for the radars on the ground to see them

3. It can't fight and will get our pilots killed
20-1 kill ratio against Red Air aggressors

List goes on and on. When asked to support his claims he either ignores or claims he proved it earlier in this giant thread. An example of this is his ridiculous claims that he knows the F-35s radar cross section from the spec sheet. This would be laughable if it wasn't so sad, no official RCS is published for F-35, what he's got is anti-F35 bloggers making estimates by looking at pictures, or marble vs. BB talk that went around the internet before they even flew the first plane to know.

ManOnTheStreet takes this further by completely disregarding comments from actual F-35 pilots who rave about how dominant the plane (that doesn't work) performs, believing it all to be propaganda while he sticks to his blog writers who aren't even pilots. This would include pilots from many countries, different branches of service, and all the Red Air and hundreds of other personnel involved in exercises. All in some massive conspiracy to lie about F-35 performance. Clearly ManOnTheStreet has chosen the route that requires suspension of disbelief.

We'll continue dialing up his previous stupid posts here as more and more irrefutable evidence that the plane works just fine is published, and laugh as ManOnTheStreet stubbornly makes a fool of himself.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Everyone you've built so far requires fixing.....and......after 2 decades


There is a lot of space between a plane that has open issues and saying it doesn't work. By your stupid logic F-18s with their recent oxygen issues don't work, despite a long proven decorated combat record. How many times have F-18s been grounded in the last couple years? They find issues with planes, they fix them.

A-10 first flew in the early 70s, was full production by 1976, and didn't see combat until 15 years later in 1991. During that time they went through four upgrades to resolve airframe fatigue and wing cracking issues, upgraded to work with Pave Penny, upgraded to have inertial navigation, upgraded to have LASTE and ground collision warning, upgraded to have GPS navigation, upgraded to have mult-function display, and again more upgrades to wing structure. Is the A-10 included when you say no aircraft has had some upgrades before hitting combat?

F-22 first flew in the 90s, and hit combat as a JDAM chucker in Syria in 2014. During that time it was upgraded to use said JDAM, radar was upgraded to SAR, upgrades to facilitate electronic attack and drop SDB, upgrades to structure, infamous upgrade to oxygen system, and upgrade to lower maintenance stealth coating they have on F-35. Plenty of upgrades either planned or fully implemented before hitting combat

Don't get me started on F-16.

Can we assume you believe A-10, F-22, and F-18 don't work?


----------



## DrainBamage

Picaro said:


> The ones designed for the Israelis had the larger weapons bays, I think.


Israeli F-35s will have the standard weapons bay of the F-35A, size won't be modified.

Their first batch will be stock F-35s that they will install various Israeli systems on, if I remember correctly it was mainly related to electronic attack, different weapons, software to support those weapons, and different wing tips. I think they were doing conformal fuel tanks to since they don't have the refueling logistics like the US and need the strike range into Iran. Later planes are supposedly going to be delivered completely configured as their Adir version with addons built in ground up, not sure when that is supposed to start happening.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> thats the talking point anyway.


Classic example of Manonthestreet's willingness to suspend reality to say something utterly stupid.

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 is deployed to Iwakuni Japan with operational F-35Bs.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats the talking point anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic example of Manonthestreet's willingness to suspend reality to say something utterly stupid.
> 
> Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 is deployed to Iwakuni Japan with operational F-35Bs.
Click to expand...


It's funny.  The AV8B is going to be around a bit longer.  Not because they don't have enough F-35Bs but that the F-18C/Ds are having to be ground at such a high rate and there isn't enough funding to replace them with new F-18E/Fs.  They want to keep as many asses in the air as possible.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> F-18C/Ds are having to be ground at such a high rate


(channeling manonthestreet)

F-18s don't work! They are hangar queens that will get our pilots killed! Mach 1.8 too slow, an SU-30 flying clean with no armament would shoot those F-18s out of the sky since it would be faster and higher.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-18C/Ds are having to be ground at such a high rate
> 
> 
> 
> (channeling manonthestreet)
> 
> F-18s don't work! They are hangar queens that will get our pilots killed! Mach 1.8 too slow, an SU-30 flying clean with no armament would shoot those F-18s out of the sky since it would be faster and higher.
Click to expand...


Manopause always uses the ground version of the SU-30.  The Carrier version is just as doggy.  In the original flyoff between the F-16 and the F-17, the F-16 barely edged out the F-17.  But by the time the F-17 became a carrier bird, it was quite a bit heavier.  Same goes for almost any carrier bird after the F-4.  You don't get something for nothing.

Besides, the F-18C/D is the old Hornet and they have been flown hard and put away wet too many times and badly need replacement.  The AF is having the same problem with their older F-15/16s.  If you want to kill pilots at a high rate, go into combat with these older birds.  Or you can buy new ones like the F-35A and F-18E/F Super hornets right now.  The F-35C just isn't quite ready to go onto that list.

The Marines are in the worst shape since a large percentage of their F-18s are of the C/D.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> while having no IR signature reduction whatsoever





Manonthestreet said:


> no ir reduction whatsover


This is a typical Manonthestreet analysis where he makes a lot of assumptions without really having a clue what he is talking about.

First of all the F-135 engine has a very high bypass ratio (more air) which is a far greater factor in IR signature,  Manonstreet is making an (understandable but) incorrect assumption that higher thrust = higher external temperatures. Other IR reduction features include venting to reduce internal temperatures, IR reduction in the stealth coating, shaping to hide the exhause from the sides, and the jagged nozzle that forces vortexes of air around the exhaust to further damper external heat signature. No, they don't make the engine nozzle jagged just to look cool.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> thats the talking point anyway.


Here are the F-35Asl, which don't work and aren't operational, arriving for their overseas deployment to Lakenheath UK to work with other US and NATO assets.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> they still can't attack fast-moving targets on the ground _at all_, a key capability for aircraft supporting troops on the ground.


Besides the obvious error in your claim that F-35 can't hit a fast moving target (pilot can lead it with laser like they have been trained to do for decades) we can also note that the next software release 3F will include Lead Target Compute so that older munitions like GBU-12 can take advantage of the plane's software handling the lead, in addition to newer LGBs that have the lead built into the munition itself.

F-35C targeting system guides weapon to moving target  > Edwards Air Force Base > News





“(The pilot) doesn’t have to think about how fast the target’s going, or what direction,” O’Fallon said. “By him using this 3F capability, it’s doing all the weaponeering for him. That’s really the big thing, it’s a single-seat fighter. He’s got to do it all, so we want to do as much for him as we can.” Although the GBU-12 was inert, it still made short work of its intended target, a small pickup truck.


----------



## DrainBamage

The F-35 that Manonthestreet says "doesn't work" (the one with the 20-1 kill ratio in Red Flag) is deploying to Estonia for a few weeks of training.'

F-35 Lightning II jets to arrive in Estonia on Tuesday
According to information available to ERR, American Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II aircraft will arrive at Ämari air base on Tuesday. The jets will remain in Estonia for several weeks and conduct training flights with other aircraft of the U.S. and allied air forces.


----------



## DrainBamage

Two F-35s that Manonthestreet claims don't work and can't be deployed have just deployed to Bulgaria.

USAF 5th-Generation Fighter Jets Arrive in Bulgaria | at DefenceTalk

These movements were planned in advance and in close coordination with the Bulgarian government, Eucom officials said. The deployment allows the F-35A pilots and supporting airmen the opportunity to engage in familiarization training within the European theater while reassuring allies and partners of U.S. dedication to the enduring peace and stability of the region, according to U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials. The aircraft and airmen are from the Air Force’s 34th Fighter Squadron and the Air Force Reserve’s 466th Fighter Squadron. Both units are based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

The F-35A’s were joined by an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, which departed from Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England. The air refueler is an Air Force Reserve aircraft forward-deployed from the 459th Air Reserve Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and showcases the command’s ability to employ active and reserve airmen across the globe, Eucom officials said.

As the first European flying training deployment for the F-35A, these movements signify an important milestone and natural progression of the joint strike fighter program throughout Europe, the officials said.


----------



## I amso IR

“It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)

If you can get through the first several paragraphs of what I term, "I felt like an honest to God, real live pilot and jet jockey "boost", the article is in it's brevity very interesting. It shows how deadly the F22/F35/British "Typhoon", are in pairing up for the fight. A sense of despair exists, at the minimum! How you doing Daryl?


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Two F-35s that Manonthestreet claims don't work and can't be deployed have just deployed to Bulgaria.
> 
> USAF 5th-Generation Fighter Jets Arrive in Bulgaria | at DefenceTalk
> 
> These movements were planned in advance and in close coordination with the Bulgarian government, Eucom officials said. The deployment allows the F-35A pilots and supporting airmen the opportunity to engage in familiarization training within the European theater while reassuring allies and partners of U.S. dedication to the enduring peace and stability of the region, according to U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials. The aircraft and airmen are from the Air Force’s 34th Fighter Squadron and the Air Force Reserve’s 466th Fighter Squadron. Both units are based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
> 
> The F-35A’s were joined by an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, which departed from Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England. The air refueler is an Air Force Reserve aircraft forward-deployed from the 459th Air Reserve Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and showcases the command’s ability to employ active and reserve airmen across the globe, Eucom officials said.
> 
> As the first European flying training deployment for the F-35A, these movements signify an important milestone and natural progression of the joint strike fighter program throughout Europe, the officials said.


2?   Oh wow....bet they could shott down entire Russian AF by themself and never be seen........LLMMAAOOOOO Nothing but a sales pitch....


----------



## I amso IR

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two F-35s that Manonthestreet claims don't work and can't be deployed have just deployed to Bulgaria.
> 
> USAF 5th-Generation Fighter Jets Arrive in Bulgaria | at DefenceTalk
> 
> These movements were planned in advance and in close coordination with the Bulgarian government, Eucom officials said. The deployment allows the F-35A pilots and supporting airmen the opportunity to engage in familiarization training within the European theater while reassuring allies and partners of U.S. dedication to the enduring peace and stability of the region, according to U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials. The aircraft and airmen are from the Air Force’s 34th Fighter Squadron and the Air Force Reserve’s 466th Fighter Squadron. Both units are based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
> 
> The F-35A’s were joined by an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, which departed from Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England. The air refueler is an Air Force Reserve aircraft forward-deployed from the 459th Air Reserve Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and showcases the command’s ability to employ active and reserve airmen across the globe, Eucom officials said.
> 
> As the first European flying training deployment for the F-35A, these movements signify an important milestone and natural progression of the joint strike fighter program throughout Europe, the officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> 2?   Oh wow....bet they could shott down entire Russian AF by themself and never be seen........LLMMAAOOOOO Nothing but a sales pitch....
Click to expand...


Oh well! MOS give it a rest. The article gives the Journalist a chance to toot his own horn along with some fact concerning the F22, F35, and British Tornado. They were successful and the enemy were unable to see them in time to defend themselves. You, in other posts, tout the speed factor during supersonic flight as attained by the Russians while the primary point is, you cannot shoot or chase what you cannot see while he tracking you all along. Get really real old son! Fast flight is only valuable when running, chasing or getting out of your girlfriends house when Hubby comes home. Get used to it!


----------



## Manonthestreet

I amso IR said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two F-35s that Manonthestreet claims don't work and can't be deployed have just deployed to Bulgaria.
> 
> USAF 5th-Generation Fighter Jets Arrive in Bulgaria | at DefenceTalk
> 
> These movements were planned in advance and in close coordination with the Bulgarian government, Eucom officials said. The deployment allows the F-35A pilots and supporting airmen the opportunity to engage in familiarization training within the European theater while reassuring allies and partners of U.S. dedication to the enduring peace and stability of the region, according to U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials. The aircraft and airmen are from the Air Force’s 34th Fighter Squadron and the Air Force Reserve’s 466th Fighter Squadron. Both units are based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
> 
> The F-35A’s were joined by an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, which departed from Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England. The air refueler is an Air Force Reserve aircraft forward-deployed from the 459th Air Reserve Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and showcases the command’s ability to employ active and reserve airmen across the globe, Eucom officials said.
> 
> As the first European flying training deployment for the F-35A, these movements signify an important milestone and natural progression of the joint strike fighter program throughout Europe, the officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> 2?   Oh wow....bet they could shott down entire Russian AF by themself and never be seen........LLMMAAOOOOO Nothing but a sales pitch....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well! MOS give it a rest. The article gives the Journalist a chance to toot his own horn along with some fact concerning the F22, F35, and British Tornado. They were successful and the enemy were unable to see them in time to defend themselves. You, in other posts, tout the speed factor during supersonic flight as attained by the Russians while the primary point is, you cannot shoot or chase what you cannot see while he tracking you all along. Get really real old son! Fast flight is only valuable when running, chasing or getting out of your girlfriends house when Hubby comes home. Get used to it!
Click to expand...

F22 much better plane than f35 which everyone admits is not an air supe platform....meaning they cant clear the skies of aggressors.....meaning they will get shot down


----------



## I amso IR

Manonthestreet said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two F-35s that Manonthestreet claims don't work and can't be deployed have just deployed to Bulgaria.
> 
> USAF 5th-Generation Fighter Jets Arrive in Bulgaria | at DefenceTalk
> 
> These movements were planned in advance and in close coordination with the Bulgarian government, Eucom officials said. The deployment allows the F-35A pilots and supporting airmen the opportunity to engage in familiarization training within the European theater while reassuring allies and partners of U.S. dedication to the enduring peace and stability of the region, according to U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials. The aircraft and airmen are from the Air Force’s 34th Fighter Squadron and the Air Force Reserve’s 466th Fighter Squadron. Both units are based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
> 
> The F-35A’s were joined by an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, which departed from Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England. The air refueler is an Air Force Reserve aircraft forward-deployed from the 459th Air Reserve Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and showcases the command’s ability to employ active and reserve airmen across the globe, Eucom officials said.
> 
> As the first European flying training deployment for the F-35A, these movements signify an important milestone and natural progression of the joint strike fighter program throughout Europe, the officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> 2?   Oh wow....bet they could shott down entire Russian AF by themself and never be seen........LLMMAAOOOOO Nothing but a sales pitch....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well! MOS give it a rest. The article gives the Journalist a chance to toot his own horn along with some fact concerning the F22, F35, and British Tornado. They were successful and the enemy were unable to see them in time to defend themselves. You, in other posts, tout the speed factor during supersonic flight as attained by the Russians while the primary point is, you cannot shoot or chase what you cannot see while he tracking you all along. Get really real old son! Fast flight is only valuable when running, chasing or getting out of your girlfriends house when Hubby comes home. Get used to it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F22 much better plane than f35 which everyone admits is not an air supe platform....meaning they cant clear the skies of aggressors.....meaning they will get shot down
Click to expand...


Not everyone makes that statement including many currently rated pilots. Please do not take that as an insult as you have far to much going for you for me to insult, outright. But if you do not mind I will accept their testimony against yours. Stay friendly as I suspect you also, find that a much better way to communicate.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I amso IR said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two F-35s that Manonthestreet claims don't work and can't be deployed have just deployed to Bulgaria.
> 
> USAF 5th-Generation Fighter Jets Arrive in Bulgaria | at DefenceTalk
> 
> These movements were planned in advance and in close coordination with the Bulgarian government, Eucom officials said. The deployment allows the F-35A pilots and supporting airmen the opportunity to engage in familiarization training within the European theater while reassuring allies and partners of U.S. dedication to the enduring peace and stability of the region, according to U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials. The aircraft and airmen are from the Air Force’s 34th Fighter Squadron and the Air Force Reserve’s 466th Fighter Squadron. Both units are based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
> 
> The F-35A’s were joined by an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, which departed from Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England. The air refueler is an Air Force Reserve aircraft forward-deployed from the 459th Air Reserve Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and showcases the command’s ability to employ active and reserve airmen across the globe, Eucom officials said.
> 
> As the first European flying training deployment for the F-35A, these movements signify an important milestone and natural progression of the joint strike fighter program throughout Europe, the officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> 2?   Oh wow....bet they could shott down entire Russian AF by themself and never be seen........LLMMAAOOOOO Nothing but a sales pitch....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well! MOS give it a rest. The article gives the Journalist a chance to toot his own horn along with some fact concerning the F22, F35, and British Tornado. They were successful and the enemy were unable to see them in time to defend themselves. You, in other posts, tout the speed factor during supersonic flight as attained by the Russians while the primary point is, you cannot shoot or chase what you cannot see while he tracking you all along. Get really real old son! Fast flight is only valuable when running, chasing or getting out of your girlfriends house when Hubby comes home. Get used to it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F22 much better plane than f35 which everyone admits is not an air supe platform....meaning they cant clear the skies of aggressors.....meaning they will get shot down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone makes that statement including many currently rated pilots. Please do not take that as an insult as you have far to much going for you for me to insult, outright. But if you do not mind I will accept their testimony against yours. Stay friendly as I suspect you also, find that a much better way to communicate.
Click to expand...

Look at its own designation...strike fighter.......that aint air supe
America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?


----------



## I amso IR

Manonthestreet said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two F-35s that Manonthestreet claims don't work and can't be deployed have just deployed to Bulgaria.
> 
> USAF 5th-Generation Fighter Jets Arrive in Bulgaria | at DefenceTalk
> 
> These movements were planned in advance and in close coordination with the Bulgarian government, Eucom officials said. The deployment allows the F-35A pilots and supporting airmen the opportunity to engage in familiarization training within the European theater while reassuring allies and partners of U.S. dedication to the enduring peace and stability of the region, according to U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials. The aircraft and airmen are from the Air Force’s 34th Fighter Squadron and the Air Force Reserve’s 466th Fighter Squadron. Both units are based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
> 
> The F-35A’s were joined by an Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker, which departed from Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England. The air refueler is an Air Force Reserve aircraft forward-deployed from the 459th Air Reserve Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and showcases the command’s ability to employ active and reserve airmen across the globe, Eucom officials said.
> 
> As the first European flying training deployment for the F-35A, these movements signify an important milestone and natural progression of the joint strike fighter program throughout Europe, the officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> 2?   Oh wow....bet they could shott down entire Russian AF by themself and never be seen........LLMMAAOOOOO Nothing but a sales pitch....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well! MOS give it a rest. The article gives the Journalist a chance to toot his own horn along with some fact concerning the F22, F35, and British Tornado. They were successful and the enemy were unable to see them in time to defend themselves. You, in other posts, tout the speed factor during supersonic flight as attained by the Russians while the primary point is, you cannot shoot or chase what you cannot see while he tracking you all along. Get really real old son! Fast flight is only valuable when running, chasing or getting out of your girlfriends house when Hubby comes home. Get used to it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F22 much better plane than f35 which everyone admits is not an air supe platform....meaning they cant clear the skies of aggressors.....meaning they will get shot down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone makes that statement including many currently rated pilots. Please do not take that as an insult as you have far to much going for you for me to insult, outright. But if you do not mind I will accept their testimony against yours. Stay friendly as I suspect you also, find that a much better way to communicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at its own designation...strike fighter.......that aint air supe
> America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?
Click to expand...


Air superiority is just that. Being it does all things well, depending upon it's design and limitation. Should a MIG 15 sneak in upon a B1 bomber, kick it's butt and send it earth bound where it burns brightly in the darkness which is the superior of the two? Please do not respond with a MIG 15 will never be able to sneak up on a B1 with the defense measures we employ because that is exactly how you base your arguments against the F35. The F35 is not the fastest bird in the air, granted. The F22 is one of the fastest birds aloft however and what if the same MIG 15 were able to get with in range before being detected? Who or which would be superior in that fight? Now I cannot recall the Russian aircraft you mentioned a few posts back but then lets assume it is not aware until the ground control or countermeasures see the F35 and the F35 has a missle en route from it's counter measures protections which was launched prior to our Russian friend being alerted was locked on and fixing to fly up Russia's arse, who was superior in that contest? Using those guidelines which our military calls "shoot, scoot and communicate" with the combined strength of being linked to many assets, which provide the computers the info the pilots need to stay in the loop, who would you give an advantage too. If you cannot honestly answer that question without postulating, you fail. It is that simple, clear and unvarnished. The F35 does not possess "Super Cruise" because it does not need "super cruise" and can hobble along at 950/1000 miles an hour and survive. And unless, once again, you are running, chasing, or leaving your girl friends house, super cruise is a waste of gas, time and energy. It is intended not to dogfight. Why dogfight when you can smack the other guy on the back of his head by his not realizing you have him hooked up. And should he see you he had better to fight the F22, F18, Brit Tornado, as well as French, German, Israel and anyone else who is in the game while the F35 is flying in circles observing and directing traffic to defeat Ivan. Why do you have trouble understand the F35's mission. It and it's pilot are traffic cops in the true sense of the world who are also skilled fighters and well trained pugilists who know their way around. Please, I beg of you, read and understand/absorbe my words and their meaning, the F35 is in fact a multi purpose aircraft with superb awareness and support which gives it thumbs up. An aircraft which costs what it does cost had better be a jack of all trades and the master of all of them. Just the same as Dung Fong Ill who can jump 20 feet straight up and fly over his pursuer. Can you hear me now, is all I ask? If you disagree that's fine but at least produce more than "just look at it's designation". Piss on it's designation, look at what it does. Lost to a F16, big deal! Past news which has been proven untrue and not factual no matter who writes the story. And so what as that was then and it is now two years later and the F16 has been retired, just like my MIG15. Cheers old son.


----------



## Marion Morrison

F35 is not the greatest program ever endeavored.

It's not a total bust, either, so somewhere in-between I suppose, slightly above fair-to-middling.


----------



## I amso IR

Marion Morrison said:


> F35 is not the greatest program ever endeavored.
> 
> It's not a total bust, either, so somewhere in-between I suppose, slightly above fair-to-middling.



What then is one of the greatest endeavored.


----------



## Marion Morrison

I amso IR said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> F35 is not the greatest program ever endeavored.
> 
> It's not a total bust, either, so somewhere in-between I suppose, slightly above fair-to-middling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What then is one of the greatest endeavored.
Click to expand...


The one that's been the most combat tactically successful.


----------



## I amso IR

Marion Morrison said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> F35 is not the greatest program ever endeavored.
> 
> It's not a total bust, either, so somewhere in-between I suppose, slightly above fair-to-middling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What then is one of the greatest endeavored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one that's been the most combat tactically successful.
Click to expand...


Umh!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean the Harrier (AV8B), not the Osprey (OV-22).
> 
> And I for one have long recognized that the first run of just about any military equipment does not perform exactly as advertised.  The M-16 was not reliable until the A1, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers were not really world class until the last of the first gens were launched, and the F-18 was originally rejected by the Navy, only being accepted after many years of upgrades and modifications.
> 
> And yes, a replacement for the Harrier is badly needed.  An upgrade of the Vietnam era Harrier, even the youngest Marine Harrier II is over a decade old, and it is time to start seriously working on their replacement.
> 
> And yes, it is still needed.  For a Marine Amphibious Force, this is often their only air to air defense when they are separated from a Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> I have worked with a great many pieces of equipment in the military over the years, and it had always gone through many modifications, so that it barely resembled the original models.  And if somebody has a good eye, they can spot them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a First Generation PATRIOT Missile launcher, a piece of equipment I am very familiar with.  That one happens to be a the museum at the White Sands Missile Range (where I have inspected it in detail).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is a PAC III 3rd generation launcher.  I can spot at least 7 differences in a 1 second glance to tell one from the other.  Could the original shoot down an inbound ballistic missile?  No.  Could the original be rapidly emplaced with the entire Battery ready to fight in less then an hour?  No.  Was it able to do it's original job and shoot down enemy aircraft within 2 hours?  Yes.
> 
> In short, I do not see this as a boondoggle.  I simply see it as a program that is badly needed, to replace equipment that is dangerously close to the end of it's lifespan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am all for upgrading military equipment, and yes, nothing performs as advertised.  However, the amount of money being squandered on the F-35 is horrific.  That money could be used to upgrade small arms, artillery and other essential equipment that will actually get use in a low intensity warfare arena.  The F-35 was designed to fight the Soviet Union and I would rather have the 14 A-10's that the money for a single F-35 would buy.
> 
> To be honest I am rather jaundiced when it comes to "stealth" aircraft.  You simply don't need all aircraft to be stealthy.  There are few operators with the capability to deal with 4th Gen aircraft as they stand now.  Even more ridiculous is the stealthy Littoral Combat Vessel.  I have never seen a stealth ship operating off shore, hide from the trusty old MK I eyeball.
Click to expand...


You can see in the dark?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
Click to expand...


Night.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Night.
Click to expand...







Good luck with that.  Plenty of people can see the aircraft at night.  Those jet exhausts are pretty freaking obvious.  I'm a pilot, I fly at night not infrequently, and you can spot the F-18s from Fallon NAS from miles away at night.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  Plenty of people can see the aircraft at night.  Those jet exhausts are pretty freaking obvious.  I'm a pilot, I fly at night not infrequently, and you can spot the F-18s from Fallon NAS from miles away at night.
Click to expand...


Bullshit!  Unless those jets are in afterburner you won't see shit! Especially the F-22 and F-35 which are specifically designed to reduce their IR signature.  Visual is impossible.

Go try that "I am a pilot so I know what I am talking about" line somewhere else, like maybe in a kindergarten class.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  Plenty of people can see the aircraft at night.  Those jet exhausts are pretty freaking obvious.  I'm a pilot, I fly at night not infrequently, and you can spot the F-18s from Fallon NAS from miles away at night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Unless those jets are in afterburner you won't see shit! Especially the F-22 and F-35 which are specifically designed to reduce their IR signature.  Visual is impossible.
> 
> Go try that "I am a pilot so I know what I am talking about" line somewhere else, like maybe in a kindergarten class.
Click to expand...








I specifically stated the F-18 silly girl and yes, they are easy to spot unless they are nose on.  Let me know when you graduate to First Grade.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  Plenty of people can see the aircraft at night.  Those jet exhausts are pretty freaking obvious.  I'm a pilot, I fly at night not infrequently, and you can spot the F-18s from Fallon NAS from miles away at night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Unless those jets are in afterburner you won't see shit! Especially the F-22 and F-35 which are specifically designed to reduce their IR signature.  Visual is impossible.
> 
> Go try that "I am a pilot so I know what I am talking about" line somewhere else, like maybe in a kindergarten class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated the F-18 silly girl and yes, they are easy to spot unless they are nose on.  Let me know when you graduate to First Grade.
Click to expand...


Why do you think you can pull off that bullshit story?  If you are seeing jet exhaust, you need to lay off the drugs while flying lest you be a hazard to yourself and others.

I am constantly around jet aircraft even now and have never seen what you claim.  At night, a Blackhawk helicopter without running lights is damned near invisible flying 100 feet in the air, from any aspect. BTW, it has two great big jet engines on it!

Why don't you admit you exaggerated?

The next thing you will tell me is that you see the jet exhaust from gas turbine ship's engines.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  Plenty of people can see the aircraft at night.  Those jet exhausts are pretty freaking obvious.  I'm a pilot, I fly at night not infrequently, and you can spot the F-18s from Fallon NAS from miles away at night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Unless those jets are in afterburner you won't see shit! Especially the F-22 and F-35 which are specifically designed to reduce their IR signature.  Visual is impossible.
> 
> Go try that "I am a pilot so I know what I am talking about" line somewhere else, like maybe in a kindergarten class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated the F-18 silly girl and yes, they are easy to spot unless they are nose on.  Let me know when you graduate to First Grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think you can pull off that bullshit story?  If you are seeing jet exhaust, you need to lay off the drugs while flying lest you be a hazard to yourself and others.
> 
> I am constantly around jet aircraft even now and have never seen what you claim.  At night, a Blackhawk helicopter without running lights is damned near invisible flying 100 feet in the air, from any aspect. BTW, it has two great big jet engines on it!
> 
> Why don't you admit you exaggerated?
> 
> The next thing you will tell me is that you see the jet exhaust from gas turbine ship's engines.
Click to expand...








You really love comparing apples to boulders don't you.   Blackhawks have special baffles to prevent IR missiles from locking on to them.  See that big piece that covers the engine exhaust in the picture below?  Yes, that one.  Go pound sand silly girl.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  Plenty of people can see the aircraft at night.  Those jet exhausts are pretty freaking obvious.  I'm a pilot, I fly at night not infrequently, and you can spot the F-18s from Fallon NAS from miles away at night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Unless those jets are in afterburner you won't see shit! Especially the F-22 and F-35 which are specifically designed to reduce their IR signature.  Visual is impossible.
> 
> Go try that "I am a pilot so I know what I am talking about" line somewhere else, like maybe in a kindergarten class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated the F-18 silly girl and yes, they are easy to spot unless they are nose on.  Let me know when you graduate to First Grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think you can pull off that bullshit story?  If you are seeing jet exhaust, you need to lay off the drugs while flying lest you be a hazard to yourself and others.
> 
> I am constantly around jet aircraft even now and have never seen what you claim.  At night, a Blackhawk helicopter without running lights is damned near invisible flying 100 feet in the air, from any aspect. BTW, it has two great big jet engines on it!
> 
> Why don't you admit you exaggerated?
> 
> The next thing you will tell me is that you see the jet exhaust from gas turbine ship's engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really love comparing apples to boulders don't you.   Blackhawks have special baffles to prevent IR missiles from locking on to them.  See that big piece that covers the engine exhaust in the picture below?  Yes, that one.  Go pound sand silly girl.
Click to expand...


You are the one smoking dope or something even harder!

You still haven't answered the question.  What is it you are "seeing" on these F-18s?  When they flew around my carrier and ships you don't see shit.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> 2?   Oh wow....bet they could shott down entire Russian AF by themself and never be seen........LLMMAAOOOOO Nothing but a sales pitch....


Feeble attempt at misdirection. 

You said the plane didn't work and wasn't operational, clearly both wrong.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F22 much better plane than f35 which everyone admits is not an air supe platform....meaning they cant clear the skies of aggressors.....meaning they will get shot down


As with most things you type on this forum, this is incorrect.

F-35  was designed to be and is the second best air superiority fighter in the world. You have been babbling about how they will get shot down since before they dominated every exercise they participated in, and here you are still babbling about getting shot down despite 20-1 kill ratio in Red Flag. Makes you look like a stubborn demagogue.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Look at its own designation...strike fighter.......that aint air supe


Well that makes a lot of sense... let's judge whether the plane can dominate other aircraft by the name, instead of the actual air-to-air dominance it has been exhibiting. Let's ignore that poll of actual pilots on which plane they'd rather have that weighed so heavily in favor of F-35, and go with yet another article by random blogger.

The longer you stubbornly cling to your ideas that have been clearly proven wrong, the more foolish you look.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> meaning they will get shot down



“Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says

Indeed, while early reports suggested a 15-1 kill ratio recent Air Force testimony by Lt. Gen. Jerry D. Harris, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command *characterized the kill ratio as “20-1” *meaning that, for one F-35A “lost” in simulated combat in a high threat environment that the aircraft destroyed 20 simulated enemy aircraft. During the same testimony, U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, *related a 24-0 kill ratio for U.S. Marine F-35B aircraft during a different exercise.* 

Can you look any more like a dumbass? I think not.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  Plenty of people can see the aircraft at night.  Those jet exhausts are pretty freaking obvious.  I'm a pilot, I fly at night not infrequently, and you can spot the F-18s from Fallon NAS from miles away at night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Unless those jets are in afterburner you won't see shit! Especially the F-22 and F-35 which are specifically designed to reduce their IR signature.  Visual is impossible.
> 
> Go try that "I am a pilot so I know what I am talking about" line somewhere else, like maybe in a kindergarten class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated the F-18 silly girl and yes, they are easy to spot unless they are nose on.  Let me know when you graduate to First Grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think you can pull off that bullshit story?  If you are seeing jet exhaust, you need to lay off the drugs while flying lest you be a hazard to yourself and others.
> 
> I am constantly around jet aircraft even now and have never seen what you claim.  At night, a Blackhawk helicopter without running lights is damned near invisible flying 100 feet in the air, from any aspect. BTW, it has two great big jet engines on it!
> 
> Why don't you admit you exaggerated?
> 
> The next thing you will tell me is that you see the jet exhaust from gas turbine ship's engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really love comparing apples to boulders don't you.   Blackhawks have special baffles to prevent IR missiles from locking on to them.  See that big piece that covers the engine exhaust in the picture below?  Yes, that one.  Go pound sand silly girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one smoking dope or something even harder!
> 
> You still haven't answered the question.  What is it you are "seeing" on these F-18s?  When they flew around my carrier and ships you don't see shit.
Click to expand...







It depends on where I am at the time.  If I am over the desert and high I will see their shadow tracking over the ground before I see them.  If I am flying over a city or town and high i will see their Nav lights first, then I will make out the silhouette.  If I am lowdown over the desert I will spot them against the moon, or their Nav lights.  And I don't have access to FLIR, where they show up like this....

Most military's have FLIR now, so, yet again, the MK I eyeball ignores Stealth tech.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> meaning they will get shot down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says
> 
> Indeed, while early reports suggested a 15-1 kill ratio recent Air Force testimony by Lt. Gen. Jerry D. Harris, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command *characterized the kill ratio as “20-1” *meaning that, for one F-35A “lost” in simulated combat in a high threat environment that the aircraft destroyed 20 simulated enemy aircraft. During the same testimony, U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, *related a 24-0 kill ratio for U.S. Marine F-35B aircraft during a different exercise.*
> 
> Can you look any more like a dumbass? I think not.
Click to expand...

Indeed,,,its why Navy is alrdy working on its replacement before it gets into service....theres a first to be proud of.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Indeed,,,its why Navy is alrdy working on its replacement before it gets into service....theres a first to be proud of.


So let's all try to follow Manonthestreet's logic here.... because the US Navy is pursuing development for the replacement of their F-18 wings (that is what F/A-XX  is intended to replace) down the road, we can conclude that all this air-to-air dominance exhibited by F-35s in the air is false and they will get shot down as he claims. Manonthestreet believes all these pilots that actually fly in and against the F-35 are wrong, and he as the keyboard warrior with wonderful insight into US Navy motivations is right.

That is about as retarded as Manonthestreet saying F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter because it's name  has the word "strike" in it.

Derp.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Unless those jets are in afterburner you won't see shit! Especially the F-22 and F-35 which are specifically designed to reduce their IR signature.  Visual is impossible.
> 
> Go try that "I am a pilot so I know what I am talking about" line somewhere else, like maybe in a kindergarten class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated the F-18 silly girl and yes, they are easy to spot unless they are nose on.  Let me know when you graduate to First Grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think you can pull off that bullshit story?  If you are seeing jet exhaust, you need to lay off the drugs while flying lest you be a hazard to yourself and others.
> 
> I am constantly around jet aircraft even now and have never seen what you claim.  At night, a Blackhawk helicopter without running lights is damned near invisible flying 100 feet in the air, from any aspect. BTW, it has two great big jet engines on it!
> 
> Why don't you admit you exaggerated?
> 
> The next thing you will tell me is that you see the jet exhaust from gas turbine ship's engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really love comparing apples to boulders don't you.   Blackhawks have special baffles to prevent IR missiles from locking on to them.  See that big piece that covers the engine exhaust in the picture below?  Yes, that one.  Go pound sand silly girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one smoking dope or something even harder!
> 
> You still haven't answered the question.  What is it you are "seeing" on these F-18s?  When they flew around my carrier and ships you don't see shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on where I am at the time.  If I am over the desert and high I will see their shadow tracking over the ground before I see them.  If I am flying over a city or town and high i will see their Nav lights first, then I will make out the silhouette.  If I am lowdown over the desert I will spot them against the moon, or their Nav lights.  And I don't have access to FLIR, where they show up like this....
> 
> Most military's have FLIR now, so, yet again, the MK I eyeball ignores Stealth tech.
Click to expand...


You are simply full of shit! With no moon, no nav lights, and no FLIR, you can't see!

Don't be such a dumbass trying to defend an indefensible position.

I'm done playing your stupid games.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Most military's have FLIR now, so, yet again, the MK I eyeball ignores Stealth tech.


Most militaries including Aggressor Squadron at Red Flag, the ones consistently at the receiving end of ass whuppins by stealthy 5th gen aircraft who are still learning how to best employ them to advantage.






IRST/FLIR is no panacea for detecting and tracking stealth aircraft. It is a big sky and they can't search it very efficiently.


----------



## DrainBamage

Germany asks U.S. for classified briefing on Lockheed's F-35 fighter

*Germany asks U.S. for classified briefing on Lockheed's F-35 fighter*
In the letter, the Air Force said a small team of air force officers was gathering data to prepare for a detailed analysis of alternatives for a new warplane. The group was working closely with the ministry's "Task Force Future Air Combat System," which aims to make a recommendation for a political decision in mid-2018, the letter said. "In order to understand (the) F-35's cutting-edge technologies, the German Air Force is requesting a classified brief of the F-35's capabilities in general and especially concerning sensor suites, information management and operational capabilities," the letter said. The letter said a video conference suggested by U.S. officials in Bonn would help speed up the process. A source familiar with U.S. weapons programs said the classified briefing requested by Germany would likely last around eight hours.

This is in addition to the interest expressed by Switzerland, Belgium and Finland. Just as the village idiot Manonthestreet predicted, no international interest.


----------



## DrainBamage

Air Force: F-35 3F software drop challenges resolved -- Defense Systems
The Air Force expects to operationalize the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s latest “3F” software iteration by September or October of this year, a development which will integrate additional technology and equip the stealth aircraft with a wider range of weapons, service leaders said.

Block 3F includes internal carriage of eight SDBs, so much for the oft-repeated "can't carry enough weapons" argument.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Navy Wants to Spend $7.1B on 80 More Super Hornets Over the Next Five Years

USAF increases scope of F-16 SLEP to include more aircraft and airframe hours | Jane's 360
While the service had previously stated that up to 300 of the service's 1,017 Block 40/42 and 50/52 C- and D-model aircraft would see their airframe hours increased from the current 8,000 hours to 12,000 hours (an increase equivalent to about eight years of operational flying), a notice posted by the service on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website on 12 June says that these numbers are now to grow to 841 aircraft and 13,856 hours.

Two votes of no confidence in F-35 being anywhere near rdy or capable in near future.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Navy Wants to Spend $7.1B on 80 More Super Hornets Over the Next Five Years
> 
> USAF increases scope of F-16 SLEP to include more aircraft and airframe hours | Jane's 360
> While the service had previously stated that up to 300 of the service's 1,017 Block 40/42 and 50/52 C- and D-model aircraft would see their airframe hours increased from the current 8,000 hours to 12,000 hours (an increase equivalent to about eight years of operational flying), a notice posted by the service on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website on 12 June says that these numbers are now to grow to 841 aircraft and 13,856 hours.
> 
> Two votes of no confidence in F-35 being anywhere near rdy or capable in near future.



Let's take a look at something.

The F-15C/F-16C that they need to upgrade are both in sorry shape.  And there isn't enough money to replace them either.  It's either extend their lives or have a few hundred fighters less.  Even the F-35 can't do anything about that.

The F-18C/D is so inferior that it's not even funny.  It's also about 40 years old.  There goes another few hundred fighters from the Navies inventory.  It's either upgrade them (and still have an inferior bird) or replace them.  There is only X amount of bucks to do around.

Give it a break, Snydlee.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Two votes of no confidence in F-35 being anywhere near rdy or capable in near future.


Only someone with your bizarre dogmatic criticism of the plane would assume it's about capability of the F-35.

Then again you've come up so with much laughable stuff that was easily disproven your credibility around here is zero.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two votes of no confidence in F-35 being anywhere near rdy or capable in near future.
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone with your bizarre dogmatic criticism of the plane would assume it's about capability of the F-35.
> 
> Then again you've come up so with much laughable stuff that was easily disproven your credibility around here is zero.
Click to expand...

Seems like just yesterday they were yapping we gotta retire all these so we can buy enough F35 as soon as possible. Ah the good ol days.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Seems like just yesterday they were yapping we gotta retire all these so we can buy enough F35 as soon as possible. Ah the good ol days.


Seems like yesterday you were saying the F-35 couldn't fight, then it went 20-1 in Red Flag.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Those are new F18 buys not refurbs.....adding over 500 more F-16 to upgrade work list........they know F35 isn't rdy for primetime. Rumbles of EU designing their own now......


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Rumbles of EU designing their own now......


Actually there are rumors of additional countries jumping on the F-35 program including Germany, Poland, and Finland.

Sure you spent years babbling about how all the international partners would drop out, but you've shown an amazing ability to stomach looking foolish over and over.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rumbles of EU designing their own now......
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are rumors of additional countries jumping on the F-35 program including Germany and Poland.
> 
> Sure you spent years babbling about how all the international partners would drop out, but you've shown an amazing ability to stomach looking foolish over and over.
Click to expand...

Love how the fire team has me on alert ......getting bad isn't it.....they all have to be rebuilt....now upengined because they are getting fatter and slower ........


----------



## mudwhistle

Indofred said:


> Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
> The Royal navy are going to be serious miffed. Question is, what would possess the British MOD to but a possibly dodgy bit of kit?
> 
> PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.


An F4 is  Phantom......which looks like this...







I think his avatar is an F15.


----------



## mudwhistle

Mushroom said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean the Harrier (AV8B), not the Osprey (OV-22).
> 
> And I for one have long recognized that the first run of just about any military equipment does not perform exactly as advertised.  The M-16 was not reliable until the A1, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers were not really world class until the last of the first gens were launched, and the F-18 was originally rejected by the Navy, only being accepted after many years of upgrades and modifications.
> 
> And yes, a replacement for the Harrier is badly needed.  An upgrade of the Vietnam era Harrier, even the youngest Marine Harrier II is over a decade old, and it is time to start seriously working on their replacement.
> 
> And yes, it is still needed.  For a Marine Amphibious Force, this is often their only air to air defense when they are separated from a Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> I have worked with a great many pieces of equipment in the military over the years, and it had always gone through many modifications, so that it barely resembled the original models.  And if somebody has a good eye, they can spot them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a First Generation PATRIOT Missile launcher, a piece of equipment I am very familiar with.  That one happens to be a the museum at the White Sands Missile Range (where I have inspected it in detail).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is a PAC III 3rd generation launcher.  I can spot at least 7 differences in a 1 second glance to tell one from the other.  Could the original shoot down an inbound ballistic missile?  No.  Could the original be rapidly emplaced with the entire Battery ready to fight in less then an hour?  No.  Was it able to do it's original job and shoot down enemy aircraft within 2 hours?  Yes.
> 
> In short, I do not see this as a boondoggle.  I simply see it as a program that is badly needed, to replace equipment that is dangerously close to the end of it's lifespan.
Click to expand...

They have been working on a Harrier replacement....the F35


----------



## mudwhistle

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-USAF-need-the-F-35-when-the-F-22-has-not-been-used-in-combat


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

*Nothing but a brick waiting to crash.  A10 should really be in production.  The Older Russian jets can out fly the New AF toy.*


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> .they all have to be rebuilt....now upengined because they are getting fatter and slower ........


Classic example, you've been yammering about how they are too slow to be effective forever, yet there they are with a 20-1 kill ratio. Turns out you were the clueless one eh?


----------



## DrainBamage

Dan Stubbs said:


> *Nothing but a brick waiting to crash.The Older Russian jets can out fly the New AF toy.*


Yeah 90,000 flight hours on a single engine plane without a single crash, it has proven to be the opposite of what you say, it's the plane that refuses to crash.

You make a lot of sense, dumbass.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dan Stubbs said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nothing but a brick waiting to crash.  A10 should really be in production.  The Older Russian jets can out fly the New AF toy.*
Click to expand...


Let's take a look.

The Production F-35A matches the F-16 in a turn.  The BS test that is used was against the AF-2 version limited to 6.5Gs.  The Production A is limited at 9+Gs.  There is no fighter other than F-22 that can out turn the F-16 including the SU-35 so that means that the F-35A can dogfight just fine.  BS Debunked.

IT only goes Mach 1.6.  So what.  It does it with a full load of Amraams and can still out distance any other fighter short of the F-22.  Meanwhile, your Russian and Chinese stuff will have to start jettisoning it's payload (including missiles) to get anywhere near the loaded F-35A.  You forget, those numbers for the other fighters are done clean; No Droptanks, no bombs, no missiles and just enough gas for it to make that dash and then quickly find a tanker of an air field.  Your BS is debunked.

And it's still not able to be picked up with radar if it's more than about 25 miles.  It's been slinging missiles, guiding in other birds missiles for the last 70 miles or so before you can have any hopes of doing a weapons lockon and launch.  You think that it will have to fly the other guys advantages.  Sorry, doesn't work that way.  It gets first shots (notice plural) first look and you have to play by the F-35A rules.  You honestly believe our Pilots are complete idiots.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two votes of no confidence in F-35 being anywhere near rdy or capable in near future.
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone with your bizarre dogmatic criticism of the plane would assume it's about capability of the F-35.
> 
> Then again you've come up so with much laughable stuff that was easily disproven your credibility around here is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like just yesterday they were yapping we gotta retire all these so we can buy enough F35 as soon as possible. Ah the good ol days.
Click to expand...


It still holds for the F-35A.   Some of the F-15/16 C and D models date back to the 70s.  I remember why they took the F-4 out of service.  That bird once had a 12 G Air Frame but ended up with a 6G due to age.  The older 15/16s are in the same boat.  Do we build a new 15 at 110 mil each, do we build a new F-16 at 80 Mil or do we spend 85 mil for the F-35A.   It's economics 101.

Same goes for the A-10.  There are 171 of them that need to have it's wings replaced (the plants that made them are building other things), the Avionics isn't up to snuff.  Even in Syria, the A-10 rarely drops below 10K feet due to manpads that ISIS and other might have.  If you can't go below that altitude then it's no better than 8 or 9 different Birds for CAS.  Plus, you are limited to about 150 mile radius.  They already upgraded the rest of the 286 A-10s.  So we have just over 100 that are ready to go as long as the bad guys doesn't have any ground to air weapons.  NO pilot in the right mind likes to play to a stacked deck like you think the A-10 should.  We can buy more birds but it takes years and millions to get that pilot where he can barely find his way in and out of battle.  Goering made the same mistake.


----------



## DrainBamage

Here is the "can't turn can't climb" F-35 putting on an impressive display at the Paris Air Show yesterday:


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I saw something that Lockheed claimed.  The deceleration of that bird is phenomenal along with the acceleration.  The F-35A is not that slick of an airframe.  When it pops out his air breaks, he can slow down more quickly than any other Fighter today.  And he has a better than a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio when fully loaded with internal weapons which is better than even the F-16 or SU-35.  Where he might not be better in a turn, his vertical is almost magical.  It's like the Mig-21 V F-4E where the F-4 would always force the Mig-21 into a vertical fight where the F-4 had the advantage.  A turn and burn fight only happens if the other pilot allows it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

If you watch the clip closely, you will see some pretty serious Angle of Attacks.  He can continue forward, raise the nose to a ridiculous degree and continue to track you without going out of control.  He can slow way down, have a high AOA and then put the burners on faster than any bird I have ever seen or even heard of.  He can quickly slow down, make a tight turn and the accelerate faster than even a F-22 up to his normal fighting speed.  Like one of the pilots at Red Flag said, we just had to learn how to fly it.


----------



## DrainBamage

Apparently this is a plane flying 3i software, so limited to 7.5gs yet still dancing around. Maybe we can get one more "can't turn can't climb" chant from the resident dumbass.

Block 3F later this year = 9gs limit.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Apparently this is a plane flying 3i software, so limited to 7.5gs yet still dancing around. Maybe we can get one more "can't turn can't climb" chant from the resident dumbass.
> 
> Block 3F later this year = 9gs limit.



They are already slowly installing the 3F package.  When you know a F-35A is in the area, guess you just have to roll the dice whether you are facing a F-35A or F-35C or F-35B.

The max g limits on the C is 7.5 just like the F-18.  While the B is limited to 6.5.  Meanwhile, the A has a 9+ G limit.  This is in the 3I software.  

The 3F software was 100% written as of October 2016.  It has more to do with the ground attack weapons than the Air to Air.  It has nothing to do with the G limits imposed on the 3 versions.  

The F-35B is the heaviest of the 3.  It has the lowest G rating.  Next is the F-35C and it has to limited exactly like the F-18 is.  The lightest is the F-35A and it has the same G loading as the F-16.  

What some use for the G capability is Sustained.  The F-35A, in a quick turn, will pull up to 9.99 Gs.  But in order to sustain the turn, it will have to back off to about 6.5 to 7.5.  It's not the airframe that requires this, it's the pilot.  If a Pilot were to keep doing 9.99 Gs in a sustained turn he would be out cold right after the initial turn started. So, like the F-22, the F-35A has a lower sustained G rating.


----------



## DrainBamage

The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.

F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.


----------



## longknife




----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.



Care to give me an idea where you came up with that?  Considering, in 2012, the F-35A was certified for Max 1.61 and 9.9Gs.


----------



## DrainBamage

Sure, it's right in the slides they have released detailing software versions:







F-35 Air Demo Debut Highlighted Combat Maneuvering
Gunn and Alan Norman, Lockheed’s chief test pilot, were repeatedly asked about the F-35’s dogfighting capabilities and limitations, given past reports that claimed the new strike fighter was not as capable as some legacy aircraft in short-range engagements. Both stayed positive, noting the F-35 is already highly capable and getting better all the time. For example, *jets are currently limited to 7G turns with Block 3I mission software, but the next software block, which will begin rolling out in August, allows for 9G turns.*

F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation'
The F-35 in its current 3i configuration is limited to 7g; when the fighter gets its full war-fighting capability with the final 3F software, it will be able to pull 9gs.

F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation'
The F-35 at the show is flying with Block 3i software, meaning it is limited to 7g. However, it can fly to above 50 degrees AoA.

Block 3F software aids F-35 weapons test
With its current Block 3I software, the F-35A is limited to 7g manoeuvres, rather than the 9g loads it is expected to handle with Block 3F.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Sure, it's right in the slides they have released detailing software versions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 Air Demo Debut Highlighted Combat Maneuvering
> Gunn and Alan Norman, Lockheed’s chief test pilot, were repeatedly asked about the F-35’s dogfighting capabilities and limitations, given past reports that claimed the new strike fighter was not as capable as some legacy aircraft in short-range engagements. Both stayed positive, noting the F-35 is already highly capable and getting better all the time. For example, *jets are currently limited to 7G turns with Block 3I mission software, but the next software block, which will begin rolling out in August, allows for 9G turns.*
> 
> F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation'
> The F-35 in its current 3i configuration is limited to 7g; when the fighter gets its full war-fighting capability with the final 3F software, it will be able to pull 9gs.
> 
> F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation'
> The F-35 at the show is flying with Block 3i software, meaning it is limited to 7g. However, it can fly to above 50 degrees AoA.
> 
> Block 3F software aids F-35 weapons test
> With its current Block 3I software, the F-35A is limited to 7g manoeuvres, rather than the 9g loads it is expected to handle with Block 3F.



Good reporting.  But I know that the F-35A at Nellis has been recorded pulling at least one 9.99 G rate.  You have to understand the way the Flyers of Fighters use terminology.  Limited to means not supposed to go over.  Our F-15As were "Limited to" 8.5 Gs.   If you went over that you noticed that the G Meter would stick on your highest pulled G.    The G Meter was conveniently placed where you had access to it by your boot.  You just put your boot into it hard and wrote it up as a faulty G meter.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

This is from another area.  And it makes good sense.  In order to the F-16 and others to be combat ready and do the job the F-35A does, it has to be heavily loaded including at least two drop tanks.  The Turn Rate is drastically reduced and the maximum allowable Gs degrades fast.  A Fully loaded F-16 can't manage even a 6 g turn rate.  In the Air Shows, the F-16 is completely clean and with just enough gas to do the show and a bit more.  The F-35A is combat ready for the Air Show and can still get this type of performance.  The F-35A with it's 7 G turn rate vs a F-16 combat loaded at 5 or 6 Gs, which would be the winner.  You see, at combat rate, the F-35A still has a better than 1:1 thrust ratio.  But a fully loaded out F-16C has about a .85:1 thrust to weight ratio.  Here is another persons opinion.

(this area has many retired veteran flyers)

Airyx wrote:

_We've gone to a lot of effort to develop off-boresight weapons
precisely so that aircraft don't have to engage in high-AOA maneuvers
to try to get a shot._

True. Most air show maneuvers will never be used anywhere BUT, at an airshow..AA is now a totally different kind of fight, and has been four about 25 years. F-16 pilots who have transitioned have to be retrained. They are conditioned to have to rapidly point the nose to shoot, now they can just shoot over their shoulder without making a turn at all.

_Even though turning ACM will probably never happen again, some level of agility is still needed to try and get outside of the field of view of an inbound missile._


Actual flying says that the F-35A (the most agile of the three
variants) is limited to 7g instantaneous maneuvers.  The F/A-18 is
7.5g and the F-16 is 9g.  The F-35 is supposed to eventually have the
envelope opened to allow 9g instantaneous turns, but it'll never get
any better at continuous turns than it is right now.

One point on this...

Air show F-16s are totally cleaned-up for the show.

An F-35A, with 4 Aim-120s, 2 Aim-9s, and enough fuel to be on CAP station 250nm out for 3 hours can still make those same turns.

An F-16 can't do that mission without in-flight refueling, but you can put a pair of 370gal tanks, and an AN/ALQ-184 on it along with the same weapons to get pretty close. With that load, the F-16 can no longer pull 9g, nor can it stay on station for much more than an hour.

The bottom line is, once you put the gear onto an F-16 to make it actually capable of doing something, its air show performance is nullified...but an F-35As is not.


----------



## DrainBamage

It is the software that limits it to 7G turns right now, 3F will allow 9G.

This pilot mentions it a couple times, at 2:55 and 5:20.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> It is the software that limits it to 7G turns right now, 3F will allow 9G.
> 
> This pilot mentions it a couple times, at 2:55 and 5:20.



Yet it's been reported by the Nellis Pilots that they can do and have done a 9.99 g turn.  Officially, it's limited to 7 but Pilots are a stubborn lot.  They look at 7 gs like it was a challenge to get more out of it


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says



One man's opinion and he isn't even a fighter pilot.  Try again, skippy.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's opinion and he isn't even a fighter pilot.  Try again, skippy.
Click to expand...

Not an opinion.....and since they all need repair good luck. Still wont risk one in ME even for a pr victory.......tells ya something


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's opinion and he isn't even a fighter pilot.  Try again, skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not an opinion.....and since they all need repair good luck. Still wont risk one in ME even for a pr victory.......tells ya something
Click to expand...


Normally, the F-35A is at over 70%.  The F-35B is usually higher than that.  You take one week where some (notice the word some) are grounded for safety reasons and you think it's a license to use those figures for every day.  Why aren't you dogging the F-18 that is much, much worse.

What use would the F-35 have in the ME when even the F-22 is just there right now.  The two kills go to the F-18E and the F-15E.  Unless they fire up and start locking on with their new S400 Radar.  At that point, the F-22 and the F-35A get jobs.  The F-35 is to busy scaring the hell out of the North Koreans and the Russians.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's opinion and he isn't even a fighter pilot.  Try again, skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not an opinion.....and since they all need repair good luck. Still wont risk one in ME even for a pr victory.......tells ya something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normally, the F-35A is at over 70%.  The F-35B is usually higher than that.  You take one week where some (notice the word some) are grounded for safety reasons and you think it's a license to use those figures for every day.  Why aren't you dogging the F-18 that is much, much worse.
> 
> What use would the F-35 have in the ME when even the F-22 is just there right now.  The two kills go to the F-18E and the F-15E.  Unless they fire up and start locking on with their new S400 Radar.  At that point, the F-22 and the F-35A get jobs.  The F-35 is to busy scaring the hell out of the North Koreans and the Russians.
Click to expand...

but...but close air support chAMPion ....uuummmmm ummmmmm
all of need fixing right out of the factory.......and continue to need fixing as more crap is found


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's opinion and he isn't even a fighter pilot.  Try again, skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not an opinion.....and since they all need repair good luck. Still wont risk one in ME even for a pr victory.......tells ya something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normally, the F-35A is at over 70%.  The F-35B is usually higher than that.  You take one week where some (notice the word some) are grounded for safety reasons and you think it's a license to use those figures for every day.  Why aren't you dogging the F-18 that is much, much worse.
> 
> What use would the F-35 have in the ME when even the F-22 is just there right now.  The two kills go to the F-18E and the F-15E.  Unless they fire up and start locking on with their new S400 Radar.  At that point, the F-22 and the F-35A get jobs.  The F-35 is to busy scaring the hell out of the North Koreans and the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but...but close air support chAMPion ....uuummmmm ummmmmm
> all of need fixing right out of the factory.......and continue to need fixing as more crap is found
Click to expand...


Out of all the Attack or Fighter CAS, your vaunted A-10 is probably the worst in the ME right now.  In order to get it into position, it's going to take a tanker just to get it 150 miles onto target.  And since it has no choice but to stay at least 10k in altitude, it must loft in it's weapons.  Just like the F-16, F-18, F-15.  And it's a fair weather bird.  Unlike the F-15E.

The baddest CAS is still and always has been the AC-130.  You don't hear much about them since they are attached to special operations.  But they are busy each and every day.  Did you know (I doubt you do) that the original intent of the AC-130 was for CAS?  Yes, way back in the late 60s.  But they worked so well at night (overcast, etc.) that they also used it for enemy supply lines.  But if you are going to try to do an overrun then an AC-130 would stop it cold.  

Today, the AC-130U/J can attack at an altitude that AAA and ground fired weapons just can't reach it.  Go ahead, bring your Tanks, Artillery and more.  For the next 4 hours, death will come reigning down on your ranks.  

The F-35A can already carry and deliver SBDs right on target from almost any altitude.  And hit within a couple of feet from center.  And in all sorts of bad weather.  The F-35A will never be the best at it.  The Best is still the AC-130 and has been for 50 years.  But being second ain't so bad.


----------



## longknife

Just saw a squadron from another base out at Nellis AFB yesterday.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Five Signs the F-35 Fighter Is a Smashing Success | RealClearDefense

*Five Signs the F-35 Fighter Is a Smashing Success*


By Loren Thompson
June 20, 2017
This week's performance by the F-35 fighter at the Paris Air Show is a turning point for the world's most advanced multi-role fighter, demonstrating that even when fully loaded with combat gear, it can out-perform the tactical aircraft of every other country. Although prime contractor Lockheed Martin has always professed confidence F-35 would prove itself, a dwindling collection of critics continues to attack the plane citing outdated or simply erroneous arguments.

The critics fail to grasp that F-35 is one of the greatest technological achievements of this generation, a program that will assure global air dominance for the U.S. and its allies through mid-century. It also will help assure that aerospace remains America's most dynamic export sector. F-35 will generate tens of billions of dollars in trade earnings, and tens of thousands of jobs, from over a dozen foreign customers. The plane has never lost a competition in which it went head-to-head with other fighters.

However, the triumph of the F-35 is obscured by the way in which news is reported. Program coverage often highlights the latest development, good or bad, without capturing the steady progress made over 16 years since the development contract was first awarded, nor the high priority that three U.S. military services have continuously assigned the program through multiple presidencies. What follows, therefore, is a concise review of five areas of accomplishment that collectively demonstrate the F-35 program has become a smashing success.

*Testing. *This year the F-35 program will wrap up the most comprehensive flight test program in aviation history. The three variants of the fighter being built for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have undergone 8,000 flights to gauge their performance without identifying a single show-stopper. Each of the variants has met all its "signature" specifications for stealthiness, making F-35 by far the most survivable fighter being built anywhere. Sensor fusion, networked operations, and other features have been thoroughly tested and retested, assuring the planes will always see first and fire first in aerial engagements. Tests of the Navy version were the most successful at-sea trials the service has ever conducted.

*Operations. *The Marine Corps version of the F-35 has been operational for two years and the Air Force version for one year. F-35s have deployed to Japan (from which they recently engaged in exercises with South Korea's military) and Europe (where they participated in exercises across the continent). Israel, the only Middle Eastern country approved to buy F-35, is also operating the plane. Over 200 F-35s have been delivered, with the number expected to rise to 600 in 2020. Over 400 pilots and 4,000 maintainers have been trained at 12 operating bases. In recent Red Flag exercises, the Air Force variant achieved a kill ratio of better than 20-to-1 against adversary aircraft while being available over 90% of the time. 

*Cost. *The Air Force version of F-35, the one being bought by most allies, is projected to cost $85 million in 2019. That's about what the latest version of legacy fighters like the F-16 cost, equivalent to roughly ten minutes of federal spending at current rates. It is also less than what a 737 MAX, Boeing's smallest next-generation jetliner, lists for. The peak year for F-35 production is scheduled in 2026, at which point all the fighters for all three domestic military services will cost less than a single day's worth of federal spending ($13.6 billion versus $17.5 billion). If current trends hold up, the planes could be even cheaper: the price-tag for the Air Force version of F-35 fell 12% over the last two production lots.

*Demand. *Washington has not wavered from its plan to buy 2,457 F-35s since development began in 2001. Obviously, that would not be the case if the program had encountered major problems. It is unusual for three services to stick with a plan through multiple presidencies covering 16 years. Equally striking, almost all of the original international partners have stuck with the program, and several new players have signed on -- Denmark, Israel, Japan and South Korea. Canada is the only country that has wavered, and in all likelihood, it will return to the fold once it sees the advantages of buying a highly survivable fighter operated by most of its key allies. F-35 has emerged as the global gold standard of next-gen air power.

*Pilots. *The most telling testimonials to F-35 excellence come from the pilots who have flown the plane. The Navy reported after the first at-sea trials of the carrier version that "the aircraft demonstrated exceptional performance throughout its initial sea trials." More recently, a squadron commander who participated in last year's Northern Lightning exercise told an in-house Air Force publication, "I couldn't ask for anything better. It's like fighting somebody with their hands tied behind their backs." Another pilot flying adversary aircraft in the exercise remarked, "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on." Pilots generally say F-35 is far superior to legacy fighters.

If you are searching for a metaphor that captures what F-35 delivers to America's military, consider the example of two prize fighters. The next-generation contender has a stronger punch, a longer reach, and superior situational awareness. But he also has something else that transforms the fight -- he is invisible to his adversary. Whatever the other fellow's training might be, he can't see his rival to land a punch. So he's down before the first round is over. That's what makes the F-35 a game-changing aircraft, the one plane that can keep America's enemies at bay for another generation. It isn't just the best air power option the joint force has -- it's the only one that works in places like Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia.

_*Loren Thompson* is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and taught nuclear strategy at Georgetown University._


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> all of need fixing right out of the factory.......and continue to need fixing as more crap is found


As opposed to every other fighter aircraft in modern history...

Oh wait, this single engine aircraft has 90k hours without a crash, something we've never seen before.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Someone asked what the purpose of the Paris Airshow was about?  I think it is quite apparent now.  Do an outstanding job in your demonstrations and the orders come flying in.  The F-35 did an outstanding flight and here comes the orders around the world (or at least the countries we will allow to have them).  The only country left on the fence right now is Canada.  NO big loss there since they will still be buying F-18E/Fs.


----------



## Mushroom

Daryl Hunt said:


> Someone asked what the purpose of the Paris Airshow was about?  I think it is quite apparent now.  Do an outstanding job in your demonstrations and the orders come flying in.



From it's founding, the Paris Air Show was always a trade show, just like the Paris Auto Show that it spun off of.  A place for designers to show their newest equipment and concepts, in the hopes that somebody will buy it.

Not unlike Le Mans.  Yes it is an auto race, but it is also an endurance contest that since the start car makers have prized to show the durability of their creations.


----------



## HenryBHough

Why all the bullshit when we all know the next war will be fought with infrastructure destruction via the internet and the occasional nuke plunging out of orbit.


----------



## DrainBamage

HenryBHough said:


> Why all the bullshit when we all know the next war will be fought with infrastructure destruction via the internet and the occasional nuke plunging out of orbit.


Your pet theories are not the equivalent of "we all know" even if it makes you feel good to think assume everyone agrees with you.


----------



## DrainBamage

Spain’s Air Force and Navy have sights set on new American fighter aircraft


After investing €10.6 billion on the European fighter plane, it turns out that Spain’s future military aircraft will in all likelihood be American-made. The Spanish Air Force and Navy have their sights set on the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, to replace the F-18s and vertical take-off Harriers that will be decommissioned halfway through the next decade. An estimated 45 to 50 aircraft will be required for the Spanish Air Force and another 12 to 15 for the Navy. The program could represent spending of over €6 billion, and more than double that considering the logistical support required to keep the aircraft operational.


This is on top of Denmark's commitment last year and Germany looking at F-35 to replace their Tornadoes. Strange, I could have sworn there was some faux expert in here *cough* manonthestreet *cough* talking about international partners dropping like flies.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Sounds like Naval version is in real trouble...landing gear needs full rework.....Trump can go Jerry Ford and veto and tweet away......they'll never hold up under the pressure. I wold only buy the Marine version and some for AF.....not a great many just enough to keep up with retirements.....Ad in some of the F-15s we sell to others that are better than ours and move on to next design.......


As with just about everything you've posted in this thread, reality has not agreed with your amateurish dire prognostications. According to info from the 2017 Tailhook Symposium the adjustment to holdback bar tension has resolved pilot experiences with catapult. Final results haven't been officially announced since they are still wrapping up testing on USS Lincoln but sounds like the change to HBB solves it.

So much for "real trouble", "full rework", please next time just type "I'm a naive drama queen" and be done with it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.



It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.  

The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.  

Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.


----------



## Hossfly

I live 2 miles from Lockheed-Martin and the Naval Air Station. When I go on post to the BX and Commissary, all the pilots I've talked to rave about how good the F-35 is.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.
> 
> The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.
> 
> Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.
Click to expand...



I'd request that you check on Navy/Marines not wearing G-Suits.  When I was flying in the Navy (E-2, EP-3, and ES-3) I know I say Fighter Jocks wearing G-Suits.


>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.
> 
> The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.
> 
> Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd request that you check on Navy/Marines not wearing G-Suits.  When I was flying in the Navy (E-2, EP-3, and ES-3) I know I say Fighter Jocks wearing G-Suits.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I talked to people that got check rides in the 2 seater F-18s and the Pilots didn't wear G-suits.  I have been on a number of USAF check rides and the G-suit was required as well as some training just to sit second seat.  The Navy also requires that small amount of training.  But the G suits weren't present in the F-18s for the reasons I gave.  I have also seen celebrity Check Rides in the F-18 and the grunt method was used instead of a G suit.

Blue Angels  https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq/  

But I will admit it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the normal F-18 pilots.  It looks like you are right except for the Blue Angels.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> I talked to people that got check rides in the 2 seater F-18s and the Pilots didn't wear G-suits.  I have been on a number of USAF check rides and the G-suit was required as well as some training just to sit second seat.  The Navy also requires that small amount of training.  But the G suits weren't present in the F-18s for the reasons I gave.  I have also seen celebrity Check Rides in the F-18 and the grunt method was used instead of a G suit.
> 
> Blue Angels  https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq/
> 
> But I will admit it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the normal F-18 pilots.  It looks like you are right except for the Blue Angels.




Saying that G-suits are not worn for check rides or by demonstrators in the F-18 is different than saying that Navy/Marines don't where G-suits in flights for combat training or in actual combat.


I think you will find that they wear G-suits today like they did years ago when I was a Naval Aviator (backend E-2, EP-3, and ES-3 platforms).


>>>>>


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.
> 
> The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.
> 
> Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd request that you check on Navy/Marines not wearing G-Suits.  When I was flying in the Navy (E-2, EP-3, and ES-3) I know I say Fighter Jocks wearing G-Suits.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I talked to people that got check rides in the 2 seater F-18s and the Pilots didn't wear G-suits.  I have been on a number of USAF check rides and the G-suit was required as well as some training just to sit second seat.  The Navy also requires that small amount of training.  But the G suits weren't present in the F-18s for the reasons I gave.  I have also seen celebrity Check Rides in the F-18 and the grunt method was used instead of a G suit.
> 
> Blue Angels  https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq/
> 
> But I will admit it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the normal F-18 pilots.  It looks like you are right except for the Blue Angels.
Click to expand...










Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.  

Switlik - CSU-15A/P U.S. Navy & Marine Corps Anti-G Suit - Military


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.
> 
> The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.
> 
> Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd request that you check on Navy/Marines not wearing G-Suits.  When I was flying in the Navy (E-2, EP-3, and ES-3) I know I say Fighter Jocks wearing G-Suits.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I talked to people that got check rides in the 2 seater F-18s and the Pilots didn't wear G-suits.  I have been on a number of USAF check rides and the G-suit was required as well as some training just to sit second seat.  The Navy also requires that small amount of training.  But the G suits weren't present in the F-18s for the reasons I gave.  I have also seen celebrity Check Rides in the F-18 and the grunt method was used instead of a G suit.
> 
> Blue Angels  https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq/
> 
> But I will admit it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the normal F-18 pilots.  It looks like you are right except for the Blue Angels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.
> 
> Switlik - CSU-15A/P U.S. Navy & Marine Corps Anti-G Suit - Military
Click to expand...


The Navy Blue Angles don't and never have.  Read my previous quote.


----------



## Hossfly

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.
> 
> The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.
> 
> Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd request that you check on Navy/Marines not wearing G-Suits.  When I was flying in the Navy (E-2, EP-3, and ES-3) I know I say Fighter Jocks wearing G-Suits.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I talked to people that got check rides in the 2 seater F-18s and the Pilots didn't wear G-suits.  I have been on a number of USAF check rides and the G-suit was required as well as some training just to sit second seat.  The Navy also requires that small amount of training.  But the G suits weren't present in the F-18s for the reasons I gave.  I have also seen celebrity Check Rides in the F-18 and the grunt method was used instead of a G suit.
> 
> Blue Angels  https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq/
> 
> But I will admit it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the normal F-18 pilots.  It looks like you are right except for the Blue Angels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.
> 
> Switlik - CSU-15A/P U.S. Navy & Marine Corps Anti-G Suit - Military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Navy Blue Angles don't and never have.  Read my previous quote.
Click to expand...


Check with williepete . He was a Navy pilot.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Navy Blue Angles don't and never have.  Read my previous quote.








The Navy Blue Angles, as a performance squadron, are not combat pilots training for combat missions or pilots in deploying squadrons for combat missions.  Whether they wear G-Suits is irrelevant to your previous post that Navy/Marine Corps fighter pilots don't where G-Suits.

It's like saying that because the ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier doesn't carry an M-4 that Army Infantry does not carry the M-4.

Why is it so difficult for you to support your claim about combat Navy/Marine pilots flying combat missions?

>>>>


----------



## williepete

Hossfly said:


> Check with williepete . He was a Navy pilot



Air Force Hoss. Air Force. F-4s and A-10s. (I know who my parents are so I was disqualified from joining the Navy or Marine Corps).



westwall said:


> Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.



*^^^ANYONE^^^ *It's as mandatory as a helmet, fire retardant flight suit/gloves, survival pack and parachute.
Why is this even a discussion topic? Oh, yeah. It's Daryl. The desk jockey who knows jack squat about flying or pulling G's.

*Howdy Hoss.* You tagged me on this thread so I responded out of my utmost respect for you. I otherwise avoid Daryl's Dementia.

Let's plan another get together of the local USMB'ers. I've got a few free passes to a local flight museum and a buddy who can get us into some hangars where the public can't go. Let me know a week or two in advance and I'll take myself off the schedule at the training center. Cheers, WP 


*
*


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest additions to weapons in 3F includes support for AIM-9X for air to air, and SDB for ground attack.
> 
> F-35A with 3i software cannot pull 9Gs, that comes in block 3F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.
> 
> The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.
> 
> Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd request that you check on Navy/Marines not wearing G-Suits.  When I was flying in the Navy (E-2, EP-3, and ES-3) I know I say Fighter Jocks wearing G-Suits.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I talked to people that got check rides in the 2 seater F-18s and the Pilots didn't wear G-suits.  I have been on a number of USAF check rides and the G-suit was required as well as some training just to sit second seat.  The Navy also requires that small amount of training.  But the G suits weren't present in the F-18s for the reasons I gave.  I have also seen celebrity Check Rides in the F-18 and the grunt method was used instead of a G suit.
> 
> Blue Angels  https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq/
> 
> But I will admit it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the normal F-18 pilots.  It looks like you are right except for the Blue Angels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.
> 
> Switlik - CSU-15A/P U.S. Navy & Marine Corps Anti-G Suit - Military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Navy Blue Angles don't and never have.  Read my previous quote.
Click to expand...









Which is true, nor do they wear O2 masks during their performances.  They feel the G-suits will interfere with their ultra precise stick movements and cause an accident.  They also tend to fly the oldest airframes in the inventory so are G-limited due to that consideration.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is set with the 3I at 7.5gs.  Not a real big deal since once the turn begins, even the F-16 has to back off to 7.0gs.  If you try and pull 9 gees continuous a Red Out becomes a factor but you back it off after the initial hard bank (we are talking seconds) you pilot will come out of the redout as soon as you back it off to around 7 gees..  Take it to 10Gs or more and it's a blackout condition and you will be flying it into the ground cecause the pilot is out cold.  Even though the F-4E was rated for 12 gees, the pilots couldn't really use it.  Start the turn at 9.5 and back it off to around 7 gees.  The USAF uses gee suits and can take advantage of the initial 9+g initial turn.  But the Navy and Marines don't use then and usually operate at between 6 and 7 gees and it takes one hell of a human to do that.
> 
> The reason the Navy doesn't use g suits is that it would take away their concentration when they are making a carrier landing.During the flyoffs, the YF-16 and the YF-17 were very close in their performance.  The YF-16 barely aced out the 17.  When they made the YF-17 for carrier duty it got a lot heavier, shorter range and the F-16 now outperformed the F-18 for load, range.  The SU-33 version for the carrier has the same problem the SU-30 that is not carrier qualified.
> 
> Unless Navy and Marine pilots start wearing G Suits, they will stay limited to between 6 and 7 gees.  Maybe they might start because of the help the F-35C gives in landing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd request that you check on Navy/Marines not wearing G-Suits.  When I was flying in the Navy (E-2, EP-3, and ES-3) I know I say Fighter Jocks wearing G-Suits.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I talked to people that got check rides in the 2 seater F-18s and the Pilots didn't wear G-suits.  I have been on a number of USAF check rides and the G-suit was required as well as some training just to sit second seat.  The Navy also requires that small amount of training.  But the G suits weren't present in the F-18s for the reasons I gave.  I have also seen celebrity Check Rides in the F-18 and the grunt method was used instead of a G suit.
> 
> Blue Angels  https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq/
> 
> But I will admit it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the normal F-18 pilots.  It looks like you are right except for the Blue Angels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.
> 
> Switlik - CSU-15A/P U.S. Navy & Marine Corps Anti-G Suit - Military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Navy Blue Angles don't and never have.  Read my previous quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is true, nor do they wear O2 masks during their performances.  They feel the G-suits will interfere with their ultra precise stick movements and cause an accident.  They also tend to fly the oldest airframes in the inventory so are G-limited due to that consideration.
Click to expand...


Did anyone feel the earth shake and the lights flicker off for a second?  Is this a world threatening condition?  We actually agreed to something.  Time to wake up.  It's obviously a nightmare.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

williepete said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check with williepete . He was a Navy pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force Hoss. Air Force. F-4s and A-10s. (I know who my parents are so I was disqualified from joining the Navy or Marine Corps).
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *^^^ANYONE^^^ *It's as mandatory as a helmet, fire retardant flight suit/gloves, survival pack and parachute.
> Why is this even a discussion topic? Oh, yeah. It's Daryl. The desk jockey who knows jack squat about flying or pulling G's.
> 
> *Howdy Hoss.* You tagged me on this thread so I responded out of my utmost respect for you. I otherwise avoid Daryl's Dementia.
> 
> Let's plan another get together of the local USMB'ers. I've got a few free passes to a local flight museum and a buddy who can get us into some hangars where the public can't go. Let me know a week or two in advance and I'll take myself off the schedule at the training center. Cheers, WP
Click to expand...


This "Desk Jockey" was involved in the Wiesbauten (sp) War Games for the Soviet Air Force team.  We reduced Nato to USAF A-10 that couldn't cross the channel and what was left of the Carrier Birds not lost in the first 3 days of the fight.  Both sides were pretty much left with older "Junk" aircraft.  Mostly Attack Birds.  Tactics and numbers win almost every time.  The only real rule we had was that whatever plan we presented before the games actually started, we had to stick with.  Nato could adapt without notice.  What they didn't know was we were Gamers.  We had already ran that same scenario many times and we presented the one that worked the best.  The Soviets lost not because of air power.  We lost because they kept making silly rules that always placed the Ground Soviets in the worst light.  In otherwords, like the Japanese for Midway, they cheated to win.  I still believe the reason we were successful was the arrogance of the pilots.  We had already convinced our Wing King that was a problem at our own base.  He made corrections to eliminate that.  One of the fixes was not to send any pilots to the games until it was corrected.  It got corrected even before we returned.  What surprised the Wing King was, we taught him the game and then he was taken out by an A-7 with him flying a fully loaded F15A.  Of course, if that scenario had been real, returning the A-7 to the base was......well...... Ever seen the way that one fighter was brought back to the Carrier in Hot Shots?  The Soviet equivalent was the SU-7 and the Soviet Bloc had more than a thousand of them.

The A-10 pilots learned quickly that almost any Soviet Attack bird could take out an A-10 almost 100% of the time by knowing how to fly against it.  We learned using the A-7 on A-10 scenario.  Missile on Missile both remains about the same.  But when the missiles are gone, it becomes a gun on gun.  The A-7 wins almost every time.  I bet you don't know why.  Now, substitute SU-7 for A-7.

Now, about why the F-18 has a problem of hard maneuvering. It's stick is between the legs.  When making a series of turns to the right, the inflated bag on the leg gets in the way which limits it's roll rate.  Plus, the F-18 is rated only at 7.5Gs due to it's weight.  I imagine that some pilots can ring out more than that.  I have heard that some pilots can ring out 8+gs.  But in an Air to Air climate, the land based fighters will be able to initially use more than 9.  Pulling 7+gs does require a G suit.  The Blue Angles don't go over about 6.5.  The F-18 is not that good as a Air to Air against other fighters as an aircraft.  What has made it so successful in Air to Air has been the nutz banging on the control stick.  Once that initial turn is started NO Fighter will be much over 7.5gs for pilots survivability.  Sorry, there super troop but you can't change physics no matter how arrogant you get.

As I stated, during my time, the Navy did NOT us G suits in the F-18A/Bs because the Pilots could handle it better on a carrier landing than with a G suit.  But times do change and the landing got a lot safer due to the birds being better and the IFLOLS being better.

Today, if a F-18E were to go into a harsh turning and burn it would be at a disadvantage to the F-16/F-15/Mig-29 or the SU-27.  A "Pilot" can make up for that, maybe.  As long as the other guy doesn't do the same.  Like USAF, the Navy has a lot of high time flyers that are well trained.  The  Russians and Chinese have fewer.  Or at least we hope so (don't get too full of yourself as you won't know who the hell is on the other side).

Remember, Super Pilot, not everything you learned was learned by another pilot.  Sometimes, an Analyst who may or may not be a flyer spend countless hours going over YOUR data over and over to find out what the hell really happened and how to make your life last longer.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy Blue Angles don't and never have.  Read my previous quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy Blue Angles, as a performance squadron, are not combat pilots training for combat missions or pilots in deploying squadrons for combat missions.  Whether they wear G-Suits is irrelevant to your previous post that Navy/Marine Corps fighter pilots don't where G-Suits.
> 
> It's like saying that because the ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier doesn't carry an M-4 that Army Infantry does not carry the M-4.
> 
> Why is it so difficult for you to support your claim about combat Navy/Marine pilots flying combat missions?
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I already admitted to that error.  I bet you were always on the top of the dog pile and never in the middle.  I was never in the dog pile.  Not the middle, top or bottom without a few getting seriously injured.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check with williepete . He was a Navy pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force Hoss. Air Force. F-4s and A-10s. (I know who my parents are so I was disqualified from joining the Navy or Marine Corps).
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone flying a high performance aircraft wears a G-suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *^^^ANYONE^^^ *It's as mandatory as a helmet, fire retardant flight suit/gloves, survival pack and parachute.
> Why is this even a discussion topic? Oh, yeah. It's Daryl. The desk jockey who knows jack squat about flying or pulling G's.
> 
> *Howdy Hoss.* You tagged me on this thread so I responded out of my utmost respect for you. I otherwise avoid Daryl's Dementia.
> 
> Let's plan another get together of the local USMB'ers. I've got a few free passes to a local flight museum and a buddy who can get us into some hangars where the public can't go. Let me know a week or two in advance and I'll take myself off the schedule at the training center. Cheers, WP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This "Desk Jockey" was involved in the Wiesbauten (sp) War Games for the Soviet Air Force team.  We reduced Nato to USAF A-10 that couldn't cross the channel and what was left of the Carrier Birds not lost in the first 3 days of the fight.  Both sides were pretty much left with older "Junk" aircraft.  Mostly Attack Birds.  Tactics and numbers win almost every time.  The only real rule we had was that whatever plan we presented before the games actually started, we had to stick with.  Nato could adapt without notice.  What they didn't know was we were Gamers.  We had already ran that same scenario many times and we presented the one that worked the best.  The Soviets lost not because of air power.  We lost because they kept making silly rules that always placed the Ground Soviets in the worst light.  In otherwords, like the Japanese for Midway, they cheated to win.  I still believe the reason we were successful was the arrogance of the pilots.  We had already convinced our Wing King that was a problem at our own base.  He made corrections to eliminate that.  One of the fixes was not to send any pilots to the games until it was corrected.  It got corrected even before we returned.  What surprised the Wing King was, we taught him the game and then he was taken out by an A-7 with him flying a fully loaded F15A.  Of course, if that scenario had been real, returning the A-7 to the base was......well...... Ever seen the way that one fighter was brought back to the Carrier in Hot Shots?  The Soviet equivalent was the SU-7 and the Soviet Bloc had more than a thousand of them.
> 
> The A-10 pilots learned quickly that almost any Soviet Attack bird could take out an A-10 almost 100% of the time by knowing how to fly against it.  We learned using the A-7 on A-10 scenario.  Missile on Missile both remains about the same.  But when the missiles are gone, it becomes a gun on gun.  The A-7 wins almost every time.  I bet you don't know why.  Now, substitute SU-7 for A-7.
> 
> Now, about why the F-18 has a problem of hard maneuvering. It's stick is between the legs.  When making a series of turns to the right, the inflated bag on the leg gets in the way which limits it's roll rate.  Plus, the F-18 is rated only at 7.5Gs due to it's weight.  I imagine that some pilots can ring out more than that.  I have heard that some pilots can ring out 8+gs.  But in an Air to Air climate, the land based fighters will be able to initially use more than 9.  Pulling 7+gs does require a G suit.  The Blue Angles don't go over about 6.5.  The F-18 is not that good as a Air to Air against other fighters as an aircraft.  What has made it so successful in Air to Air has been the nutz banging on the control stick.  Once that initial turn is started NO Fighter will be much over 7.5gs for pilots survivability.  Sorry, there super troop but you can't change physics no matter how arrogant you get.
> 
> As I stated, during my time, the Navy did NOT us G suits in the F-18A/Bs because the Pilots could handle it better on a carrier landing than with a G suit.  But times do change and the landing got a lot safer due to the birds being better and the IFLOLS being better.
> 
> Today, if a F-18E were to go into a harsh turning and burn it would be at a disadvantage to the F-16/F-15/Mig-29 or the SU-27.  A "Pilot" can make up for that, maybe.  As long as the other guy doesn't do the same.  Like USAF, the Navy has a lot of high time flyers that are well trained.  The  Russians and Chinese have fewer.  Or at least we hope so (don't get too full of yourself as you won't know who the hell is on the other side).
> 
> Remember, Super Pilot, not everything you learned was learned by another pilot.  Sometimes, an Analyst who may or may not be a flyer spend countless hours going over YOUR date over and over to find out what the hell really happened and how to make your life last longer.
Click to expand...








The only time the Naval aviators don't use their G-suits is if they are flying with the Blues.  All other times they wear them.  ALL of them.  I spend a lot of time out at Fallon NAS and I can guarantee you they are ALL wearing them.


----------



## williepete

Daryl Hunt said:


> This "Desk Jockey" was involved in the Wiesbauten (sp) War *Games* for the Soviet Air Force team. We reduced Nato to USAF A-10 that couldn't cross the channel and what was left of the Carrier Birds not lost in the first 3 days of the fight....



This is why I don't respond to your delusional threads. You are bat shit crazy. You live in a fantasy world. In your fantasy world, games are reality. I responded to this thread to answer my good friend Hossfly. And you went tripping over the edge once again.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

williepete said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "Desk Jockey" was involved in the Wiesbauten (sp) War *Games* for the Soviet Air Force team. We reduced Nato to USAF A-10 that couldn't cross the channel and what was left of the Carrier Birds not lost in the first 3 days of the fight....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't respond to your delusional threads. You are bat shit crazy. You live in a fantasy world. In your fantasy world, games are reality. I responded to this thread to answer my good friend Hossfly. And you went tripping over the edge once again.
Click to expand...


Ah, play the golden boy, arrogance card once again.  It gets people killed in combat.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "Desk Jockey" was involved in the Wiesbauten (sp) War *Games* for the Soviet Air Force team. We reduced Nato to USAF A-10 that couldn't cross the channel and what was left of the Carrier Birds not lost in the first 3 days of the fight....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't respond to your delusional threads. You are bat shit crazy. You live in a fantasy world. In your fantasy world, games are reality. I responded to this thread to answer my good friend Hossfly. And you went tripping over the edge once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, play the golden boy, arrogance card once again.  It gets people killed in combat.
Click to expand...







More people get killed by armchair warriors who believe the results of their "war games".


----------



## HenryBHough

From what I'm hearing from pilots the F-35 IS a great plane to fly when it's not grounded or restricted in some way.  Rare occasions but really great.....at times......


----------



## westwall

HenryBHough said:


> From what I'm hearing from pilots the F-35 IS a great plane to fly when it's not grounded or restricted in some way.  Rare occasions but really great.....at times......








The F-35 is a fantastic airplane.  It's just not worth what they are having to pay for them.


----------



## Hossfly

Time for a commercial break.





Helicopter pilot training. G-suit not required.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "Desk Jockey" was involved in the Wiesbauten (sp) War *Games* for the Soviet Air Force team. We reduced Nato to USAF A-10 that couldn't cross the channel and what was left of the Carrier Birds not lost in the first 3 days of the fight....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't respond to your delusional threads. You are bat shit crazy. You live in a fantasy world. In your fantasy world, games are reality. I responded to this thread to answer my good friend Hossfly. And you went tripping over the edge once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, play the golden boy, arrogance card once again.  It gets people killed in combat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people get killed by armchair warriors who believe the results of their "war games".
Click to expand...


I happen to know that the arrogance I see in here, it gets OTHERS killed.  It is dangerous to everyone around "Mr. Hero".  But since you and him have probably not been around those heroes you won't understand.  Most heroes don't.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I'm hearing from pilots the F-35 IS a great plane to fly when it's not grounded or restricted in some way.  Rare occasions but really great.....at times......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is a fantastic airplane.  It's just not worth what they are having to pay for them.
Click to expand...


The F-35A comes in under the F-15 and is about equal to a brand new F-16.  For 40 years, both of these have been head and shoulders above anything else as a team.  Today, they are no more than equal.  The US had enjoyed being the best and we need to continue being the best.


----------



## DrainBamage

HenryBHough said:


> From what I'm hearing from pilots the F-35 IS a great plane to fly when it's not grounded or restricted in some way.  Rare occasions but really great.....at times......


It's availability rate is similar to most other fighter jets, and is already much better than F-18.


F-35 by the Numbers

F-35 program manager Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the jet is doing well, logging availability of about 56 percent, mission capable rates of 66 percent, and mission effectiveness rates of 79-80 percent. “Maturity is getting better,” he said. “We are above the growth curves” predicted, he said, asserting that a mission capable (MC) rate of 60 percent is “pretty good” for a jet still in development. USAF’s goal at maturity for a jet is an MC rate of 80 percent, but USAF has been turning in MC rates in the 50-60 percent range for mature jets due to reduced readiness funding in recent years


Air Combat Commander Bullish On F-35 IOC

A key factor in Carlisle’s assessment was clearly the recent engagement at Mountain Home Air Force Base, where seven F-35As and 160 personnel from Hill AFB deployed for two weeks in the first half of June. The aircraft flew all 88 planned sorties. In target practice, they dropped 16 GBU-39 bombs and one missed. But that was a problem with the bomb, Carlisle noted, and not with the aircraft. Altogether, 39 of 40 weapons hit their targets for a 97.5 percent hit rate. And the aircraft boasted a “really, really exceptional” 92.3 mission capable rate. “It gives me a lot of confidence when I start thinking about IOC when as a capstone deployment that’s what happens,” Carlisle said.


----------



## DrainBamage

Interesting = from the 2017 Tailhook Symposium pilot says F-35 can exceed mach 1 carrying 6 x larger JDAMs (not sure if those are 1,000 or 2,000) and four AAMs, something an F-18 cannot do. I doubt an F-16 could either with similar combat load capabilities, which would also include a targeting pod, an ECM pod, and external fuel.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Even if the specified capabilities are delivered for the Air Force version in fiscal 2018, the three models of the F-35 won’t be declared to have full combat capability until they undergo vigorous operational exercises. Those won’t begin until August 2018 at the earliest and then will last as long as a year. That would be a year later than planned.  Lockheed’s F-35 Deals Barred Until Air Force Vouches for Fixes
> DO nothing air force still all show, no punch til 2019.....


Well as has been demonstrated at least a dozen times now just about everything you spout about the F-35 program ends up proven wrong. Block 3F being delivered to F-35A and F-35B this month, full combat capabilities including the gun, AIM-9X, and SDB for USAF. They only thing still being fleshed out is the MDF, which will be an easily installed software-only update.

So much for 2019.


----------



## Bleipriester

*Israel not satisfied with free F-35 Lame Ducks
*
Israel doubts the capability of the F-35.

"US trials of the F-35 alone found nearly three hundred critical issues with the fighter that until resolved made it non-airworthy."

Israel begins to doubt the capability of new F-35 fighter jets


----------



## DrainBamage

Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys


_TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_


I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys
> 
> 
> _TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_
> 
> 
> I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?


You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.

If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?

F-35 pilot disputes leaked DoD memo that claims the F-35 may never be combat ready


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> *Israel not satisfied with free F-35 Lame Ducks
> *
> Israel doubts the capability of the F-35.
> 
> "US trials of the F-35 alone found nearly three hundred critical issues with the fighter that until resolved made it non-airworthy."
> 
> Israel begins to doubt the capability of new F-35 fighter jets



Noeice that it says, "They said", "Someone said" and more.  No direct quotes.  If you had done your homework you would have seen that this is pretty much a Syrian supported site that tries to cover up any and all things the Syrian Government does or does not do.  This is strictly a propaganda post that has little to do with fact.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys
> 
> 
> _TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_
> 
> 
> I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.
> 
> If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?
> 
> F-35 pilot disputes leaked DoD memo that claims the F-35 may never be combat ready
Click to expand...


I read the article.  It's crap.  But reading another of your "LEt's sink the Porgram" cites, 3i is an interim modification where there are 15 unresolved problems that are all addressed in the 3F and 4 mods either scheduled or being done right now.  

Evenw ith thos4e 15 problems not addressed, it's still one bad MF and head and shoulders above everything else for ground attack and second to only to the F-22 for air to air.  You can't change that, now can you.  Fighter Jocks love the bird and wouldn't trade it for any other bird but each and every one of them must be in error, right?


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel not satisfied with free F-35 Lame Ducks
> *
> Israel doubts the capability of the F-35.
> 
> "US trials of the F-35 alone found nearly three hundred critical issues with the fighter that until resolved made it non-airworthy."
> 
> Israel begins to doubt the capability of new F-35 fighter jets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noeice that it says, "They said", "Someone said" and more.  No direct quotes.  If you had done your homework you would have seen that this is pretty much a Syrian supported site that tries to cover up any and all things the Syrian Government does or does not do.  This is strictly a propaganda post that has little to do with fact.
Click to expand...

You are being confused. This source is apparently the best source for ME military happenings.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys
> 
> 
> _TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_
> 
> 
> I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.
> 
> If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?
> 
> F-35 pilot disputes leaked DoD memo that claims the F-35 may never be combat ready
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  It's crap.  But reading another of your "LEt's sink the Porgram" cites, 3i is an interim modification where there are 15 unresolved problems that are all addressed in the 3F and 4 mods either scheduled or being done right now.
> 
> Evenw ith thos4e 15 problems not addressed, it's still one bad MF and head and shoulders above everything else for ground attack and second to only to the F-22 for air to air.  You can't change that, now can you.  Fighter Jocks love the bird and wouldn't trade it for any other bird but each and every one of them must be in error, right?
Click to expand...

It´s the opinion of the DoD. I think the DoD is not happy with that flying cost factor. All existing planes perform better in their roles at lower costs. The A-10 is the most low cost plane that still performs well. Even if the F-35 will be combat ready one day, it´s a big failure.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.


I read your source, and posted the entire set of information that your source cherry picked from while intentionally leaving out details so they could stamp on a misleading headline and confuse low-information readers like you. That is propaganda.

When we have all the information we see that Israel wasn't doubting the F-35 like you claim in your post, it is recommending an evaluation of whether the plan to purchase additional fighter jets is wise versus other options such as drones or artillery.



Bleipriester said:


> If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?


Your posted that it wasn't air-worthy because of development version of the plane had deficiencies, which was not the case. Clearly it is air worthy, since anyone can see them flying thousands of hours in the plane.

Regarding deficiencies, it was an "if" scenario, where if things aren't fixed it may never be combat ready. Yet here we are about to see 3F released where shortcomings (like the gun) are indeed operational and tested.

The plane is air-worthy, it takes an moron of epic proportions to claim otherwise.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys
> 
> 
> _TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_
> 
> 
> I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.
> 
> If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?
> 
> F-35 pilot disputes leaked DoD memo that claims the F-35 may never be combat ready
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  It's crap.  But reading another of your "LEt's sink the Porgram" cites, 3i is an interim modification where there are 15 unresolved problems that are all addressed in the 3F and 4 mods either scheduled or being done right now.
> 
> Evenw ith thos4e 15 problems not addressed, it's still one bad MF and head and shoulders above everything else for ground attack and second to only to the F-22 for air to air.  You can't change that, now can you.  Fighter Jocks love the bird and wouldn't trade it for any other bird but each and every one of them must be in error, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It´s the opinion of the DoD. I think the DoD is not happy with that flying cost factor. All existing planes perform better in their roles at lower costs. The A-10 is the most low cost plane that still performs well. Even if the F-35 will be combat ready one day, it´s a big failure.
Click to expand...


What has a better operating cost?  The F-16 and the A-10.  That's it.  What has a better tonnage operating cost than the F-35A?  Just the F-16 and not by a large margin.   Last year, the F-35A has gotten to just above the F-16 in operating costs.  I have already posted the link and graphics to back that up.  Where are YOUR links and where do they say that you are correct.  The only ones show either a political slant or some idiot that hasn't sat in an F-35As seat EVER.  We have shown links from the pilots that rave on how great the bird is even with it's problems.  Of course, almost all the other birds only wished they had those problems.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> It´s the opinion of the DoD. I think the DoD is not happy with that flying cost factor.


The DoD is a big organization, and you are confusing the opinion of Gilmore with the entire entity. The pilots and people close to the program might have other opinions.

Either way the passing of time has already proven the opinion you're leaning on as false. F-35 has been turning in dominant performances and is getting full combat config this month.



Bleipriester said:


> All existing planes perform better in their roles at lower costs. The A-10 is the most low cost plane that still performs well. Even if the F-35 will be combat ready one day, it´s a big failure.


This is just asinine.

If F-15 performs it's role as a fighter better why are they on the receiving end of high kill rations via F-35? You aren't making much sense.

F-16 is a better fighter/bomber? F-35 has longer legs, better sensors, can fly stealthy, etc. they aren't even close. What exactly does the F-16 do better than F-35? An F-16 matching capabilities of F-35 would need external tanks, ECM pod, targeting

AV-8B is a better attack plane? A subsonic short range jet with a much smaller payload, far inferior SA, and inability to function as an air superiority fighter is better than the F-35?

F-18 is better? F-35C has longer range, can perform missions requiring stealth configuration, has a bigger payload in non-stealth configuration, doesn't need targeting pod, ECM pod, external fuel to match capabilities, etc. there isn't a single thing F-18 does better.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys
> 
> 
> _TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_
> 
> 
> I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.
> 
> If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?
> 
> F-35 pilot disputes leaked DoD memo that claims the F-35 may never be combat ready
Click to expand...


DOT-amp-E-AF-IOC-Memo
Dated August 9th, 2016.  Long before the 3F mod was being finished or installed.  You need to be aware of the date and read the whole thing.  This was 6 months before the A model went IOC.  Most of the problems have nothing to do with it dropping or firing anything internal.  Yes, the Gun isn't right under 2B or 3I but it's been long known that it wouldn't be totally operational until 3F.  The Gun isn't real important.  If the F-35 is having to use it's gun in combat then the pilot has completely screwed the pooch.

Look at the dates then get me one that is not a year and a half old.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It´s the opinion of the DoD. I think the DoD is not happy with that flying cost factor.
> 
> 
> 
> The DoD is a big organization, and you are confusing the opinion of Gilmore with the entire entity. The pilots and people close to the program might have other opinions.
> 
> Either way the passing of time has already proven the opinion you're leaning on as false. F-35 has been turning in dominant performances and is getting full combat config this month.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> All existing planes perform better in their roles at lower costs. The A-10 is the most low cost plane that still performs well. Even if the F-35 will be combat ready one day, it´s a big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just asinine.
> 
> If F-15 performs it's role as a fighter better why are they on the receiving end of high kill rations via F-35? You aren't making much sense.
> 
> F-16 is a better fighter/bomber? F-35 has longer legs, better sensors, can fly stealthy, etc. they aren't even close. What exactly does the F-16 do better than F-35? An F-16 matching capabilities of F-35 would need external tanks, ECM pod, targeting
> 
> AV-8B is a better attack plane? A subsonic short range jet with a much smaller payload, far inferior SA, and inability to function as an air superiority fighter is better than the F-35?
> 
> F-18 is better? F-35C has longer range, can perform missions requiring stealth configuration, has a bigger payload in non-stealth configuration, doesn't need targeting pod, ECM pod, external fuel to match capabilities, etc. there isn't a single thing F-18 does better.
Click to expand...


The F-15E is the missile truck today.  I  posted where it is better on one type of mission than either the F-22 or the F-35 and that is interdiction where you are showing your manly parts instead of just firing.  Not something you want to use either the F-22 or the F-35 for.

You are right on the F-16.  When you load it out to the same loadout as the F-35A carrying internals only then you will be lucky to even reach much over Mach 1 and your G rating will be around 6 or less.    In order to enter combat, the F-16 has to drop it's tanks and a few more things to get it up to it's potential.  And you still have to have enough gas to get home without the externals.  By the time you get it ready to fight, you are limited to about 4 missiles, not extra gas, no bombs.  But loaded the F-16 out like a F-35A, you are limited to a flying brick.

Now, about the AV-8B.  When comparing it to the F-35B, it's like comparing a fish flopping in a bucket to a properly prepared Sushi.  (I really hate Sushi).  The survivability of the AV-8B against anything other than something out of the 50s is suicidal.  The F-35B can do everything the AV-8B can do and do it better, safer, faster and more.  And it will kill fewer pilots other than the enemies.

Now let's take a look at the F-18.  The F-18E/F are carrier birds.  I just love it when someone compares the F-18 to a SU-30.  The SU-30 is a land based fighter.  When you convert the SU-30 to a carrier based bird it becomes the SU-33.   The best Carrier bird is the F-18 hands down.  Right now, the Navy is using Marine F-35Bs to do some pretty fantastic stuff they have never been able to do before.  The F-35B enables the Naval Missiles an extra 200 miles.  You can only shoot as far as you can see and that is about 200 miles. Now, part that F-35B at the 200 mile mark and you just gained about 200 miles or more.  Instead of only going as far as your ship can see, you can now go until your missile either bags the target or runs out of fuel.  Not something you really want to use any version of the F-18 (including the G) for.  While the G has some pretty neat toys on board, the F-35B has almost all the toys internal and can defend itself against air to air encounters.  The G is a dead duck against many of the Russian and Chinese fighters.   Once the F-18G is discovered it can't run or fight.  With the 3F upgrades, the F-35B will be able to take over all F-18Gs functions.  But you have to understand that some of the F-35Bs are still running the version 2 mods and having even been upgraded to even the 3I.  Even so, it's so much better than the F-18 right now that even the B model is more lethal.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> I read your source, and posted the entire set of information that your source cherry picked from while intentionally leaving out details so they could stamp on a misleading headline and confuse low-information readers like you. That is propaganda.
> 
> When we have all the information we see that Israel wasn't doubting the F-35 like you claim in your post, it is recommending an evaluation of whether the plan to purchase additional fighter jets is wise versus other options such as drones or artillery.


If the source is wrong about something, there is no need to accuse it of propaganda. AMN is accurately reporting. Sources, that exclude Syrian army news are the propaganda sources in reality as the SAA is strongest and most busy war party during each day of this war. And after all the Syrian war is about Syria, right?




DrainBamage said:


> Your posted that it wasn't air-worthy because of development version of the plane had deficiencies, which was not the case. Clearly it is air worthy, since anyone can see them flying thousands of hours in the plane.
> 
> Regarding deficiencies, it was an "if" scenario, where if things aren't fixed it may never be combat ready. Yet here we are about to see 3F released where shortcomings (like the gun) are indeed operational and tested.
> 
> The plane is air-worthy, it takes an moron of epic proportions to claim otherwise.


If that is this clear, there would be no controversy. Just look at the Eurofighter for another apparent failure.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys
> 
> 
> _TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_
> 
> 
> I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.
> 
> If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?
> 
> F-35 pilot disputes leaked DoD memo that claims the F-35 may never be combat ready
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  It's crap.  But reading another of your "LEt's sink the Porgram" cites, 3i is an interim modification where there are 15 unresolved problems that are all addressed in the 3F and 4 mods either scheduled or being done right now.
> 
> Evenw ith thos4e 15 problems not addressed, it's still one bad MF and head and shoulders above everything else for ground attack and second to only to the F-22 for air to air.  You can't change that, now can you.  Fighter Jocks love the bird and wouldn't trade it for any other bird but each and every one of them must be in error, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It´s the opinion of the DoD. I think the DoD is not happy with that flying cost factor. All existing planes perform better in their roles at lower costs. The A-10 is the most low cost plane that still performs well. Even if the F-35 will be combat ready one day, it´s a big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has a better operating cost?  The F-16 and the A-10.  That's it.  What has a better tonnage operating cost than the F-35A?  Just the F-16 and not by a large margin.   Last year, the F-35A has gotten to just above the F-16 in operating costs.  I have already posted the link and graphics to back that up.  Where are YOUR links and where do they say that you are correct.  The only ones show either a political slant or some idiot that hasn't sat in an F-35As seat EVER.  We have shown links from the pilots that rave on how great the bird is even with it's problems.  Of course, almost all the other birds only wished they had those problems.
Click to expand...

The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A. It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> If the source is wrong about something, there is no need to accuse it of propaganda. AMN is accurately reporting.


Proof is in the pudding, they intentionally left out information in order to provide a false headline. That is not accurately reporting, and their source was press releases from Israel about the need to study alternatives to using fighter aircraft in the future.





DrainBamage said:


> If that is this clear, there would be no controversy. Just look at the Eurofighter for another apparent failure.


Actually no. There have been controversies about every aircraft, by your simpleton logic none of them are airworthy.

By the way, Eurofighter is air-worthy as well.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A.


You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.



Bleipriester said:


> It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.


It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.

Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job Bleipriester, you fell for some idiotic propaganda like you always do. The full press release (not the cherry picked one you're drooling over) by Israel is detailed more here: Israeli lawmakers: F-35 get is fine, but must ‘meticulously assess’ follow-on buys
> 
> 
> _TEL AVIV, Israel — Parliamentary findings released Monday on long-term planning within the Israeli military *validated the nation’s need for 50 F-35 Adir fighter jets, yet urged a comprehensive review of alternatives — including drones and “other sources of precision fire” — before a government decision to purchase another 25 to 50 aircraft, as requested by the Israeli Air Force. *“The Adir is not just another platform, but brings new capabilities to the battlefield due to its stealth,” members of a parliamentary subcommittee found following a two-year review of the Israel Defense Forces‘ multiyear organization and spending plan. In a section devoted to the Air Force, lawmakers noted that the F-35, “with all the existing limitations and against anti-aircraft missiles projected in the future, returns the Israel Air Force, through proper planning and with the recognition of its vulnerability points, to a capability for ‘stand-in’ operations.”_
> 
> 
> I also love the part about F-35 being non-airworthy. 100k flight hours without a crash (unprecedented), IOC declared, utter domination in exercises, active squadrons deployed overseas, and full combat capability being installed this month... what kind of moron would decided that is a plane that isn't airworthy?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read the article before you determine whether it is propaganda or not. Apparently, everything but approved sources is propaganda.
> 
> If the F-35 is that fantastic why does the Department of Defense think it may never be combat ready?
> 
> F-35 pilot disputes leaked DoD memo that claims the F-35 may never be combat ready
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  It's crap.  But reading another of your "LEt's sink the Porgram" cites, 3i is an interim modification where there are 15 unresolved problems that are all addressed in the 3F and 4 mods either scheduled or being done right now.
> 
> Evenw ith thos4e 15 problems not addressed, it's still one bad MF and head and shoulders above everything else for ground attack and second to only to the F-22 for air to air.  You can't change that, now can you.  Fighter Jocks love the bird and wouldn't trade it for any other bird but each and every one of them must be in error, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It´s the opinion of the DoD. I think the DoD is not happy with that flying cost factor. All existing planes perform better in their roles at lower costs. The A-10 is the most low cost plane that still performs well. Even if the F-35 will be combat ready one day, it´s a big failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has a better operating cost?  The F-16 and the A-10.  That's it.  What has a better tonnage operating cost than the F-35A?  Just the F-16 and not by a large margin.   Last year, the F-35A has gotten to just above the F-16 in operating costs.  I have already posted the link and graphics to back that up.  Where are YOUR links and where do they say that you are correct.  The only ones show either a political slant or some idiot that hasn't sat in an F-35As seat EVER.  We have shown links from the pilots that rave on how great the bird is even with it's problems.  Of course, almost all the other birds only wished they had those problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A. It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.
Click to expand...


And you know this for a fact.  Well, cupcake, facts are based on facts.  So where are your facts.  I already gave a nice link and graphics to prove your wrong.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the source is wrong about something, there is no need to accuse it of propaganda. AMN is accurately reporting.
> 
> 
> 
> Proof is in the pudding, they intentionally left out information in order to provide a false headline. That is not accurately reporting, and their source was press releases from Israel about the need to study alternatives to using fighter aircraft in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is this clear, there would be no controversy. Just look at the Eurofighter for another apparent failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no. There have been controversies about every aircraft, by your simpleton logic none of them are airworthy.
> 
> By the way, Eurofighter is air-worthy as well.
Click to expand...

The headline is correct. Eurofighters can break apart, may not use their guns and may not go further than 20 minutes from their airbase. There is a reason no Eurofighters were used in Libya and Syria: They are crap.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A.
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.
> 
> Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Prices here:
Modern Day Military Pricing List


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A.
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.
> 
> Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices here:
> Modern Day Military Pricing List
Click to expand...


The last buch of F-35As cost 110 mil per copy including engines.  Your price list in error.  I corrected the F-35 to show "Error".  Anyone can edit that page.  I suspect you may have done so as well.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> The headline is correct.


The headline is wrong, it only seems correct to naive people who don't know any better and are too lazy to verify it with additional sources. Like you.



Bleipriester said:


> Eurofighters can break apart, may not use their guns and may not go further than 20 minutes from their airbase. There is a reason no Eurofighters were used in Libya and Syria: They are crap.


Any plane "can" break apart, that doesn't make it not air-worthy. If a plane can safely fly (and Eurofighter has thousands of hours spanning decades) it is air worthy. They ferry Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you had a fun geography class where that was 20 minutes from Europe.

Again by your definition no plane is airworthy, which is incredibly stupid even coming from you. When your source says F-35 isn't air-worthy it just proves it is stupid, as is anyone who believes it. A plane that has 100k hours with zero crashes, including flights across Atlantic and Pacific, is air-worthy.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A.
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.
> 
> Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices here:
> Modern Day Military Pricing List
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last buch of F-35As cost 110 mil per copy including engines.  Your price list in error.  I corrected the F-35 to show "Error".  Anyone can edit that page.  I suspect you may have done so as well.
Click to expand...

Sad, those accusations. What would I gain from that?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A.
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.
> 
> Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices here:
> Modern Day Military Pricing List
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last buch of F-35As cost 110 mil per copy including engines.  Your price list in error.  I corrected the F-35 to show "Error".  Anyone can edit that page.  I suspect you may have done so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sad, those accusations. What would I gain from that?
Click to expand...


If you are going to lie about one thing then you will lie about others.  You are Guilty as charged or a very gullible person.  Either way, it diminishes your opinion to others.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A.
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.
> 
> Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices here:
> Modern Day Military Pricing List
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last buch of F-35As cost 110 mil per copy including engines.  Your price list in error.  I corrected the F-35 to show "Error".  Anyone can edit that page.  I suspect you may have done so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sad, those accusations. What would I gain from that?
Click to expand...


The list is actually quite accurate since it was done in 2009 and hasn't been updated since.  For the F-35, this is just an estimate and was about right for 2009.  But when it went into production that price came down considerably.

Once again, check the date of publication before you make another damned fool of yourself.


----------



## DrainBamage

Every thread Bleipriester has popped up in he has made an utter fool of himself, it isn't going to change.

He even fell for that fake Iran stealth fighter picture where they towed that toy around.


----------



## HenryBHough

DrainBamage said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I'm hearing from pilots the F-35 IS a great plane to fly when it's not grounded or restricted in some way.  Rare occasions but really great.....at times......
> 
> 
> 
> It's availability rate is similar to most other fighter jets, and is already much better than F-18.
> 
> 
> F-35 by the Numbers
> 
> F-35 program manager Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the jet is doing well, logging availability of about 56 percent, mission capable rates of 66 percent, and mission effectiveness rates of 79-80 percent. “Maturity is getting better,” he said. “We are above the growth curves” predicted, he said, asserting that a mission capable (MC) rate of 60 percent is “pretty good” for a jet still in development. USAF’s goal at maturity for a jet is an MC rate of 80 percent, but USAF has been turning in MC rates in the 50-60 percent range for mature jets due to reduced readiness funding in recent years
> 
> 
> Air Combat Commander Bullish On F-35 IOC
> 
> A key factor in Carlisle’s assessment was clearly the recent engagement at Mountain Home Air Force Base, where seven F-35As and 160 personnel from Hill AFB deployed for two weeks in the first half of June. The aircraft flew all 88 planned sorties. In target practice, they dropped 16 GBU-39 bombs and one missed. But that was a problem with the bomb, Carlisle noted, and not with the aircraft. Altogether, 39 of 40 weapons hit their targets for a 97.5 percent hit rate. And the aircraft boasted a “really, really exceptional” 92.3 mission capable rate. “It gives me a lot of confidence when I start thinking about IOC when as a capstone deployment that’s what happens,” Carlisle said.
Click to expand...


Oh, OK....."mission capable rates of 66 percent,"

I guess that would be acceptable to a person whose car refused to start 44% of the time  and he/she had to walk to work  nearly half the year.....about two days per week.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

HenryBHough said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I'm hearing from pilots the F-35 IS a great plane to fly when it's not grounded or restricted in some way.  Rare occasions but really great.....at times......
> 
> 
> 
> It's availability rate is similar to most other fighter jets, and is already much better than F-18.
> 
> 
> F-35 by the Numbers
> 
> F-35 program manager Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the jet is doing well, logging availability of about 56 percent, mission capable rates of 66 percent, and mission effectiveness rates of 79-80 percent. “Maturity is getting better,” he said. “We are above the growth curves” predicted, he said, asserting that a mission capable (MC) rate of 60 percent is “pretty good” for a jet still in development. USAF’s goal at maturity for a jet is an MC rate of 80 percent, but USAF has been turning in MC rates in the 50-60 percent range for mature jets due to reduced readiness funding in recent years
> 
> 
> Air Combat Commander Bullish On F-35 IOC
> 
> A key factor in Carlisle’s assessment was clearly the recent engagement at Mountain Home Air Force Base, where seven F-35As and 160 personnel from Hill AFB deployed for two weeks in the first half of June. The aircraft flew all 88 planned sorties. In target practice, they dropped 16 GBU-39 bombs and one missed. But that was a problem with the bomb, Carlisle noted, and not with the aircraft. Altogether, 39 of 40 weapons hit their targets for a 97.5 percent hit rate. And the aircraft boasted a “really, really exceptional” 92.3 mission capable rate. “It gives me a lot of confidence when I start thinking about IOC when as a capstone deployment that’s what happens,” Carlisle said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, OK....."mission capable rates of 66 percent,"
> 
> I guess that would be acceptable to a person whose car refused to start 44% of the time  and he/she had to walk to work  nearly half the year.....about two days per week.....
Click to expand...


An Aircraft is a different animal.  Try taking your car out to the middle of Death Valley with only enough drinking water to stay in a working car but not enough to hike out without it. and expect it to work every time.  If it doesn't, you die.  You will have second thoughts about entering Death Valley with your car.  

If an Aircraft needs to pull over for repairs, there isn't a pull off lane and there isn't any AAA that can help them.  66% is actually not bad.  During the last Red Flag, they were getting 95% sortie generation.  But under normal use, it might be 66% which isn't a bad thing.  When we got our brand new F-15A models, we had a sortie generation of 33% and that was the best for the entire AF.  Then the mods started rolling in and we got it up to about 66% until the C model was introduced and all our As were upgraded to the C specs.  It went up to about 70%.

I believe the A-10 sortie rate would be also 70%.  Not so bad.  Not great but not so bad either.  The F-35A is a new system and only misses by 4%.  When the A-10 was fairly new and had all the mods available to it done, it was nothing to hear about a 90%+ sortie rate.  But today, it's down to 70% and is just going to get worse.  Meanwhile, the F-35A is going to get better.  It's already acceptable by military fighter stands for sortie rate.

What next, you and yours going to ding the F-35A because it doesn't have an ash tray and cigarette lighter on board?


----------



## DrainBamage

Winter: Speed up Lot 11 JSF deal
WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint program office is aiming to cement a contract agreement with Lockheed Martin for the 11th batch of joint strike fighters by the end of the year. But the new head of the program office, Vice Adm. Mat Winter, wants to get it done even faster, telling reporters on Sept. 6, “I’m pressurizing the team for 15 October.” The JPO has finalized its proposal, which *will decrease the price of an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model to less than the $94.6 million per unit price* in the lot 10 deal, he said after a speech at the Defense News Conference.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35A costs 10-12000 USD more per hour and your get three F-16 for one F-35A.
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not a secret that the F-35 is the most expensive military project in history. You actually don´t have the cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.
> 
> Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prices here:
> Modern Day Military Pricing List
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last buch of F-35As cost 110 mil per copy including engines.  Your price list in error.  I corrected the F-35 to show "Error".  Anyone can edit that page.  I suspect you may have done so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sad, those accusations. What would I gain from that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to lie about one thing then you will lie about others.  You are Guilty as charged or a very gullible person.  Either way, it diminishes your opinion to others.
Click to expand...

So when I lied before?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a compulsive liar or quite uninformed. An F-35A costs under 100 million dollars, and estimates for F-16s for India (one of the latest proposals to purchase) were closer to 80 million. 3 to 1?  It's math, you should try it.
> 
> It sure is, and I'm not sure why that is considered something bad about the program. They are buying thousands of 5th gen fighters to replace aging A-10s, AV8Bs, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. I'd expect it to be the most expensive military project in history, especially since with dollar inflation there should always be new projects that are the most expensive in history.
> 
> Funny you sure turned tail and ran away from your comment that existing fighters it is replacing are better in their roles. Sucks to be called out on the bullshit you're shoveling doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Prices here:
> Modern Day Military Pricing List
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last buch of F-35As cost 110 mil per copy including engines.  Your price list in error.  I corrected the F-35 to show "Error".  Anyone can edit that page.  I suspect you may have done so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sad, those accusations. What would I gain from that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to lie about one thing then you will lie about others.  You are Guilty as charged or a very gullible person.  Either way, it diminishes your opinion to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when I lied before?
Click to expand...


Wow, the OJ defense.  It's too late for your "Innocent" routine.  I don't have to list where you have lied.  Your post speech for themselves.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when I lied before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the OJ defense.  It's too late for your "Innocent" routine.  I don't have to list where you have lied.  Your post speech for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who accuse other of lies constantly, are mostly the real liars. I have no need to lie. No employer makes me come here and I don´t care if an F-53 costs 120, 150 or 180 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When one posts a cite that is a based on a lie or lies and then attempts to support that cite then that is lying.  If I post something I don't agree with I clarify that I don't support it.  And I don't attempt to support it.
> 
> If the shoe fits......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop that nonsense. Where did I lie and where did I support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every post you have made.  Especially when you deny you lied.  Sorry, but the Trump method of argument only works for Trump.
Click to expand...

Being wrong about the prize doesn´t mean it´s lied.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the OJ defense.  It's too late for your "Innocent" routine.  I don't have to list where you have lied.  Your post speech for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who accuse other of lies constantly, are mostly the real liars. I have no need to lie. No employer makes me come here and I don´t care if an F-53 costs 120, 150 or 180 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When one posts a cite that is a based on a lie or lies and then attempts to support that cite then that is lying.  If I post something I don't agree with I clarify that I don't support it.  And I don't attempt to support it.
> 
> If the shoe fits......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop that nonsense. Where did I lie and where did I support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every post you have made.  Especially when you deny you lied.  Sorry, but the Trump method of argument only works for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being wrong about the prize doesn´t mean it´s lied.
Click to expand...


When the error is pointed out to you and you still continue to support it with all your pea pickin' heart, then it's lying.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who accuse other of lies constantly, are mostly the real liars. I have no need to lie. No employer makes me come here and I don´t care if an F-53 costs 120, 150 or 180 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one posts a cite that is a based on a lie or lies and then attempts to support that cite then that is lying.  If I post something I don't agree with I clarify that I don't support it.  And I don't attempt to support it.
> 
> If the shoe fits......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop that nonsense. Where did I lie and where did I support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every post you have made.  Especially when you deny you lied.  Sorry, but the Trump method of argument only works for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being wrong about the prize doesn´t mean it´s lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the error is pointed out to you and you still continue to support it with all your pea pickin' heart, then it's lying.
Click to expand...

But I didn´t.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for. What makes this particularly galling is the aircraft that would be left behind by such a scheme were the most expensive F-35s purchased so far. When the tab for all the aircraft purchased in an immature state is added up, the total comes to nearly $40 billion. That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for. What makes this particularly galling is the aircraft that would be left behind by such a scheme were the most expensive F-35s purchased so far. When the tab for all the aircraft purchased in an immature state is added up, the total comes to nearly $40 billion. That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money



AS usual, your fake news site got the numbers wrong.  The total is 108 that still don't have the 3I software installed.  Even so, that's way too many to have around as trainers.  But as usual, you doomsayers don't realize that all but 20 of these 108 can be upgraded later.  What they don't want to do disrupt the buying of new fully capable being produced with 3F already installed.  

The B models are the hardest hit.  They are all 2F.  But a lot less is expected from them so they can wait.

There are only a handful of C models so no biggy.  They can also wait..

The A is the most affected.  The ones that only have 2f will have to be taken out of operational service.  The ones with 3I can continue.  The bulk of the A models will be turned out with the 3F.  So it takes a bit longer before the numbers become a real problem.  And then the production schedule takes care of it.  

The problem isn't with the software or the hardware.  It's manpower.  Lockheed only has enough people doing the 3F installations for the production.  They don't have any to overflow into the field.  I have seen this before in other systems.  The Fix is to take X number of Military Techs and get them trained to install the new 3f on field systems.  Most of the A models already have the 3I and 4 installed so no big things.  They are still operational just not as operational they would be if the 3F were installed.  As you can see (you will ignore this) nothing but time and manpower and both are not insurmountable.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for. What makes this particularly galling is the aircraft that would be left behind by such a scheme were the most expensive F-35s purchased so far. When the tab for all the aircraft purchased in an immature state is added up, the total comes to nearly $40 billion. That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS usual, your fake news site got the numbers wrong.  The total is 108 that still don't have the 3I software installed.  Even so, that's way too many to have around as trainers.  But as usual, you doomsayers don't realize that all but 20 of these 108 can be upgraded later.  What they don't want to do disrupt the buying of new fully capable being produced with 3F already installed.
> 
> The B models are the hardest hit.  They are all 2F.  But a lot less is expected from them so they can wait.
> 
> There are only a handful of C models so no biggy.  They can also wait..
> 
> The A is the most affected.  The ones that only have 2f will have to be taken out of operational service.  The ones with 3I can continue.  The bulk of the A models will be turned out with the 3F.  So it takes a bit longer before the numbers become a real problem.  And then the production schedule takes care of it.
> 
> The problem isn't with the software or the hardware.  It's manpower.  Lockheed only has enough people doing the 3F installations for the production.  They don't have any to overflow into the field.  I have seen this before in other systems.  The Fix is to take X number of Military Techs and get them trained to install the new 3f on field systems.  Most of the A models already have the 3I and 4 installed so no big things.  They are still operational just not as operational they would be if the 3F were installed.  As you can see (you will ignore this) nothing but time and manpower and both are not insurmountable.
Click to expand...

As usual you peddle BS....go back and read


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for. What makes this particularly galling is the aircraft that would be left behind by such a scheme were the most expensive F-35s purchased so far. When the tab for all the aircraft purchased in an immature state is added up, the total comes to nearly $40 billion. That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS usual, your fake news site got the numbers wrong.  The total is 108 that still don't have the 3I software installed.  Even so, that's way too many to have around as trainers.  But as usual, you doomsayers don't realize that all but 20 of these 108 can be upgraded later.  What they don't want to do disrupt the buying of new fully capable being produced with 3F already installed.
> 
> The B models are the hardest hit.  They are all 2F.  But a lot less is expected from them so they can wait.
> 
> There are only a handful of C models so no biggy.  They can also wait..
> 
> The A is the most affected.  The ones that only have 2f will have to be taken out of operational service.  The ones with 3I can continue.  The bulk of the A models will be turned out with the 3F.  So it takes a bit longer before the numbers become a real problem.  And then the production schedule takes care of it.
> 
> The problem isn't with the software or the hardware.  It's manpower.  Lockheed only has enough people doing the 3F installations for the production.  They don't have any to overflow into the field.  I have seen this before in other systems.  The Fix is to take X number of Military Techs and get them trained to install the new 3f on field systems.  Most of the A models already have the 3I and 4 installed so no big things.  They are still operational just not as operational they would be if the 3F were installed.  As you can see (you will ignore this) nothing but time and manpower and both are not insurmountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual you peddle BS....go back and read
Click to expand...


We went through the same thing with the F-15A.  It took about 6 years from the time of it going OIC to get it really ready for combat.  During that time, it could fight just not at the level it would later be.  During 1979, if our Radar was on the blink we were grounded.  When we went to war with Spang (a F-4E Base) we generated only 33% of our airframes while they generated 95%.  They could still use their guns and heat seekers if they had no radar.  So they flew a flight of 5 where only one will have operating radar.  They used their heat seekers to detect the enemy and a weaver scope to aim their guns.  Meanwhile, if our radar was out, the guns wouldn't work and the Heat Seekers wouldn't either.  When the games ended, we had a 4 to one kill rate.  Basically, it became a draw.

When the F-15Cs went into production, we had a huge upgrade for the F-15A.  The actual upgrade was done by AF Personel in the field.    The boxes were still done by the contractors in the vault.  Except they didn't have enough contractors to get that job done.  They tapped our Avionics Personnel for the manpower.  The job got done.  The F-15 had the same doomsayers as the F-35.  History, doesn't it chap yer drawers to find out that there were fruitcakes long before your bunch of fruitcakes came along.


----------



## Bleipriester

*Israeli F-35 hit by Syrian S-200 air defense missile
*
A free F-35, supplied by the host of the Zionist regime, was hit by a Soviet era S-200 air defense system operated by the Syrian military. The S-200 was hit as well. Israel claims the F-35 has suffered a bird collision but the F-35 is tested against bird strikes (check out the source below). The F-35 survived the S-200 but was forced away. it is unclear if it will ever become operational again.

Syrian anti-aircraft missile hit Israel's F-35 Stealth Fighter?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> *Israeli F-35 hit by Syrian S-200 air defense missile
> *
> A free F-35, supplied by the host of the Zionist regime, was hit by a Soviet era S-200 air defense system operated by the Syrian military. The S-200 was hit as well. Israel claims the F-35 has suffered a bird collision but the F-35 is tested against bird strikes (check out the source below). The F-35 survived the S-200 but was forced away. it is unclear if it will ever become operational again.
> 
> Syrian anti-aircraft missile hit Israel's F-35 Stealth Fighter?



Nice job.  Putin could have written it himself.  Yes, the news agency is in the Ukraine but Donbass is in the Russian held part of the Ukraine.  I looked at their VK page and not one single positive thing was posted for the Ukrainians not under Russian control.  But plenty of feel good for the Russians.  The same on both Facebook and TWitter.  It claims to be a private funded non profit.  I seriously doubt that.   I'll wait and see on this one.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli F-35 hit by Syrian S-200 air defense missile
> *
> A free F-35, supplied by the host of the Zionist regime, was hit by a Soviet era S-200 air defense system operated by the Syrian military. The S-200 was hit as well. Israel claims the F-35 has suffered a bird collision but the F-35 is tested against bird strikes (check out the source below). The F-35 survived the S-200 but was forced away. it is unclear if it will ever become operational again.
> 
> Syrian anti-aircraft missile hit Israel's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice job.  Putin could have written it himself.  Yes, the news agency is in the Ukraine but Donbass is in the Russian held part of the Ukraine.  I looked at their VK page and not one single positive thing was posted for the Ukrainians not under Russian control.  But plenty of feel good for the Russians.  The same on both Facebook and TWitter.  It claims to be a private funded non profit.  I seriously doubt that.   I'll wait and see on this one.
Click to expand...

You can also translate the Hebrew article. There´s a link to it in the article. So you have another source. It´s either the S-200 or the birds and we won´t figure it out. The birds are not very likely, though.


----------



## Bleipriester

There is in update:
Neither was the F-35 able to attack the S-200 system nor was the system hit. Almost three hours after the F-35 was forced out of Syrian airspace, other Israeli jets launched missiles from Lebanon. That missiles were intercepted, one of them crashed near a radar station, causing minor damage.

Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
Syrian Arab Army


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli F-35 hit by Syrian S-200 air defense missile
> *
> A free F-35, supplied by the host of the Zionist regime, was hit by a Soviet era S-200 air defense system operated by the Syrian military. The S-200 was hit as well. Israel claims the F-35 has suffered a bird collision but the F-35 is tested against bird strikes (check out the source below). The F-35 survived the S-200 but was forced away. it is unclear if it will ever become operational again.
> 
> Syrian anti-aircraft missile hit Israel's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice job.  Putin could have written it himself.  Yes, the news agency is in the Ukraine but Donbass is in the Russian held part of the Ukraine.  I looked at their VK page and not one single positive thing was posted for the Ukrainians not under Russian control.  But plenty of feel good for the Russians.  The same on both Facebook and TWitter.  It claims to be a private funded non profit.  I seriously doubt that.   I'll wait and see on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also translate the Hebrew article. There´s a link to it in the article. So you have another source. It´s either the S-200 or the birds and we won´t figure it out. The birds are not very likely, though.
Click to expand...




Bleipriester said:


> There is in update:
> Neither was the F-35 able to attack the S-200 system nor was the system hit. Almost three hours after the F-35 was forced out of Syrian airspace, other Israeli jets launched missiles from Lebanon. That missiles were intercepted, one of them crashed near a radar station, causing minor damage.
> 
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army



I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.  

Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.

Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli F-35 hit by Syrian S-200 air defense missile
> *
> A free F-35, supplied by the host of the Zionist regime, was hit by a Soviet era S-200 air defense system operated by the Syrian military. The S-200 was hit as well. Israel claims the F-35 has suffered a bird collision but the F-35 is tested against bird strikes (check out the source below). The F-35 survived the S-200 but was forced away. it is unclear if it will ever become operational again.
> 
> Syrian anti-aircraft missile hit Israel's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice job.  Putin could have written it himself.  Yes, the news agency is in the Ukraine but Donbass is in the Russian held part of the Ukraine.  I looked at their VK page and not one single positive thing was posted for the Ukrainians not under Russian control.  But plenty of feel good for the Russians.  The same on both Facebook and TWitter.  It claims to be a private funded non profit.  I seriously doubt that.   I'll wait and see on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also translate the Hebrew article. There´s a link to it in the article. So you have another source. It´s either the S-200 or the birds and we won´t figure it out. The birds are not very likely, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is in update:
> Neither was the F-35 able to attack the S-200 system nor was the system hit. Almost three hours after the F-35 was forced out of Syrian airspace, other Israeli jets launched missiles from Lebanon. That missiles were intercepted, one of them crashed near a radar station, causing minor damage.
> 
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.
> 
> Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.
> 
> Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.
Click to expand...

You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli F-35 hit by Syrian S-200 air defense missile
> *
> A free F-35, supplied by the host of the Zionist regime, was hit by a Soviet era S-200 air defense system operated by the Syrian military. The S-200 was hit as well. Israel claims the F-35 has suffered a bird collision but the F-35 is tested against bird strikes (check out the source below). The F-35 survived the S-200 but was forced away. it is unclear if it will ever become operational again.
> 
> Syrian anti-aircraft missile hit Israel's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice job.  Putin could have written it himself.  Yes, the news agency is in the Ukraine but Donbass is in the Russian held part of the Ukraine.  I looked at their VK page and not one single positive thing was posted for the Ukrainians not under Russian control.  But plenty of feel good for the Russians.  The same on both Facebook and TWitter.  It claims to be a private funded non profit.  I seriously doubt that.   I'll wait and see on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also translate the Hebrew article. There´s a link to it in the article. So you have another source. It´s either the S-200 or the birds and we won´t figure it out. The birds are not very likely, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is in update:
> Neither was the F-35 able to attack the S-200 system nor was the system hit. Almost three hours after the F-35 was forced out of Syrian airspace, other Israeli jets launched missiles from Lebanon. That missiles were intercepted, one of them crashed near a radar station, causing minor damage.
> 
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.
> 
> Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.
> 
> Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
Click to expand...


If it happened at all.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli F-35 hit by Syrian S-200 air defense missile
> *
> A free F-35, supplied by the host of the Zionist regime, was hit by a Soviet era S-200 air defense system operated by the Syrian military. The S-200 was hit as well. Israel claims the F-35 has suffered a bird collision but the F-35 is tested against bird strikes (check out the source below). The F-35 survived the S-200 but was forced away. it is unclear if it will ever become operational again.
> 
> Syrian anti-aircraft missile hit Israel's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice job.  Putin could have written it himself.  Yes, the news agency is in the Ukraine but Donbass is in the Russian held part of the Ukraine.  I looked at their VK page and not one single positive thing was posted for the Ukrainians not under Russian control.  But plenty of feel good for the Russians.  The same on both Facebook and TWitter.  It claims to be a private funded non profit.  I seriously doubt that.   I'll wait and see on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also translate the Hebrew article. There´s a link to it in the article. So you have another source. It´s either the S-200 or the birds and we won´t figure it out. The birds are not very likely, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is in update:
> Neither was the F-35 able to attack the S-200 system nor was the system hit. Almost three hours after the F-35 was forced out of Syrian airspace, other Israeli jets launched missiles from Lebanon. That missiles were intercepted, one of them crashed near a radar station, causing minor damage.
> 
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.
> 
> Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.
> 
> Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
Click to expand...

There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice job.  Putin could have written it himself.  Yes, the news agency is in the Ukraine but Donbass is in the Russian held part of the Ukraine.  I looked at their VK page and not one single positive thing was posted for the Ukrainians not under Russian control.  But plenty of feel good for the Russians.  The same on both Facebook and TWitter.  It claims to be a private funded non profit.  I seriously doubt that.   I'll wait and see on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> You can also translate the Hebrew article. There´s a link to it in the article. So you have another source. It´s either the S-200 or the birds and we won´t figure it out. The birds are not very likely, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is in update:
> Neither was the F-35 able to attack the S-200 system nor was the system hit. Almost three hours after the F-35 was forced out of Syrian airspace, other Israeli jets launched missiles from Lebanon. That missiles were intercepted, one of them crashed near a radar station, causing minor damage.
> 
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.
> 
> Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.
> 
> Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
Click to expand...


What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also translate the Hebrew article. There´s a link to it in the article. So you have another source. It´s either the S-200 or the birds and we won´t figure it out. The birds are not very likely, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is in update:
> Neither was the F-35 able to attack the S-200 system nor was the system hit. Almost three hours after the F-35 was forced out of Syrian airspace, other Israeli jets launched missiles from Lebanon. That missiles were intercepted, one of them crashed near a radar station, causing minor damage.
> 
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.
> 
> Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.
> 
> Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
Click to expand...

That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.

However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.
> 
> Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.
> 
> Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
Click to expand...




Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that that is one of the least neutral resouces on the net.  But even so, we may never know.  Remember, in Red Flag they had 3 F-35s "Intercepted" in the first day.  AFter that, the red side weren't even aware they were there.  There is something about the F-35 that when you first get it and try to fly it like all other Fighters you get in trouble fast.  But if you learn from that and make changes to your way of operation then the F-35 becomes a fantastic out of this world beater of worlds.
> 
> Since it was a bomb run (dumb bomb) that means the F-35 has to get close, mighty close.  It's not invisible.  But to use it for anything other than a JDAM isn't using the bird too bright.  It isn't the F-35 that is at fault since you decided to do something stupid.
> 
> Plus, the SA-200 is still a good system.  Yes, it first came out in 1967 but it's been updated thruout the years.  And it integrates with the newer 300 and 400 systems.  The minute a flyer thinks the SA200 is outdated then he is going home only two ways; walking or with a flag draped over his body.  If you see it and it locks on you then you kill it, period.
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
Click to expand...


There is a lie inside that.  The Israelis say that the bird will be back in the air pretty quick.  It appears that there is just enough truth in the lie that it might be believable by some.  But I write it off as propoganda.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right. Maybe, the Israelis planned to make a big show for the Russians and got reckless. But it could also be possible that the pilot overestimated the stealth ability. It was clear the ability would not compete with the F-22 but this was clearly not a promising first encounter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lie inside that.  The Israelis say that the bird will be back in the air pretty quick.  It appears that there is just enough truth in the lie that it might be believable by some.  But I write it off as propoganda.
Click to expand...

Israel is providing air support to al-Qaeda as we speak. Anything they claim must be questioned.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> 
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it happened at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lie inside that.  The Israelis say that the bird will be back in the air pretty quick.  It appears that there is just enough truth in the lie that it might be believable by some.  But I write it off as propoganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is providing air support to al-Qaeda as we speak. Anything they claim must be questioned.
Click to expand...


Where are you posting from?  Sounds more like an ISIS rubbish more than anything else.  Could you be from the Syrian Capital and only wish to keep putting these conspiracy things over and over.  Each time we show your facts are more than flawed you move to something else.

I think I have given you more than enough attention and will get back to facts instead of Syrian or Russian conspiracies.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is little doubt also for a neutral bystander. It is highly unlikely that Israel´s story about a bird strike two weeks ago, released just when a F-35 was engaged in combat, is anywhere near reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lie inside that.  The Israelis say that the bird will be back in the air pretty quick.  It appears that there is just enough truth in the lie that it might be believable by some.  But I write it off as propoganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is providing air support to al-Qaeda as we speak. Anything they claim must be questioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you posting from?  Sounds more like an ISIS rubbish more than anything else.  Could you be from the Syrian Capital and only wish to keep putting these conspiracy things over and over.  Each time we show your facts are more than flawed you move to something else.
> 
> I think I have given you more than enough attention and will get back to facts instead of Syrian or Russian conspiracies.
Click to expand...

I am not doing conspiracies. That´s something you should have learned, already. Today, Israel attacked the Syrian army that is battling al-Qaeda (HTS).

Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> 
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes the story so unbelieveable is that the F-35I has not become IOC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lie inside that.  The Israelis say that the bird will be back in the air pretty quick.  It appears that there is just enough truth in the lie that it might be believable by some.  But I write it off as propoganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is providing air support to al-Qaeda as we speak. Anything they claim must be questioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you posting from?  Sounds more like an ISIS rubbish more than anything else.  Could you be from the Syrian Capital and only wish to keep putting these conspiracy things over and over.  Each time we show your facts are more than flawed you move to something else.
> 
> I think I have given you more than enough attention and will get back to facts instead of Syrian or Russian conspiracies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not doing conspiracies. That´s something you should have learned, already. Today, Israel attacked the Syrian army that is battling al-Qaeda (HTS).
> 
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
Click to expand...


You must think they have a crystal ball and can predict the future.  The publish date for the article is 19.10.17.  That was nine days ago.  And no mention of the type of AC.  There is a good chance the AC involved was a F-16.  The Syrians fired a missile into Israel.  There were no deaths on either side.  It was Israel telling Syria to not fire into Israel.  When someone fires on me and I fire back, it's really bad manners to complain about it.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> That strengthens the idea that Israel couldn´t wait to demonstrate its capabilities to the Russians.
> 
> However, since this is not a Israel or Syria but the F-35 thread, I have to mention that a bird strike that grounds a F-35 likely forever, is not much better for the reputation of the F-35. It would also put a question mark over the tests the F-35 is undergoing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lie inside that.  The Israelis say that the bird will be back in the air pretty quick.  It appears that there is just enough truth in the lie that it might be believable by some.  But I write it off as propoganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is providing air support to al-Qaeda as we speak. Anything they claim must be questioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you posting from?  Sounds more like an ISIS rubbish more than anything else.  Could you be from the Syrian Capital and only wish to keep putting these conspiracy things over and over.  Each time we show your facts are more than flawed you move to something else.
> 
> I think I have given you more than enough attention and will get back to facts instead of Syrian or Russian conspiracies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not doing conspiracies. That´s something you should have learned, already. Today, Israel attacked the Syrian army that is battling al-Qaeda (HTS).
> 
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think they have a crystal ball and can predict the future.  The publish date for the article is 19.10.17.  That was nine days ago.  And no mention of the type of AC.  There is a good chance the AC involved was a F-16.  The Syrians fired a missile into Israel.  There were no deaths on either side.  It was Israel telling Syria to not fire into Israel.  When someone fires on me and I fire back, it's really bad manners to complain about it.
Click to expand...

1.) The 19.10 is the 19th October and not the 10th day of a mysterious 19th month. 
2.) The Occupied Golan is not Israel but Syria, even according to your government.
3.) Syria does not fire into the Occupied Golan.
4.) Even if a shell or missile mistakenly goes there, this is not a reason to attack Syrian forces.
5.) Firing at the Occupied Golan is the terrorists´ way to call in air strikes.
6.) Israel supports the terrorists: Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lie inside that.  The Israelis say that the bird will be back in the air pretty quick.  It appears that there is just enough truth in the lie that it might be believable by some.  But I write it off as propoganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is providing air support to al-Qaeda as we speak. Anything they claim must be questioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you posting from?  Sounds more like an ISIS rubbish more than anything else.  Could you be from the Syrian Capital and only wish to keep putting these conspiracy things over and over.  Each time we show your facts are more than flawed you move to something else.
> 
> I think I have given you more than enough attention and will get back to facts instead of Syrian or Russian conspiracies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not doing conspiracies. That´s something you should have learned, already. Today, Israel attacked the Syrian army that is battling al-Qaeda (HTS).
> 
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think they have a crystal ball and can predict the future.  The publish date for the article is 19.10.17.  That was nine days ago.  And no mention of the type of AC.  There is a good chance the AC involved was a F-16.  The Syrians fired a missile into Israel.  There were no deaths on either side.  It was Israel telling Syria to not fire into Israel.  When someone fires on me and I fire back, it's really bad manners to complain about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.) The 19.10 is the 19th October and not the 10th day of a mysterious 19th month.
> 2.) The Occupied Golan is not Israel but Syria, even according to your government.
> 3.) Syria does not fire into the Occupied Golan.
> 4.) Even if a shell or missile mistakenly goes there, this is not a reason to attack Syrian forces.
> 5.) Firing at the Occupied Golan is the terrorists´ way to call in air strikes.
> 6.) Israel supports the terrorists: Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
Click to expand...


1.  You are correct but it happened days ago regardless.  Actually it happened yesterday.  Not today.
2.  Yes, and according to the sovereign state of Isreal.
3.  Firing anywhere in Israel isn't too bright
4.  Let's see.  Since Syria has publically stated that it wants Israel completely destroyed then that was an act of war firing that missile.  
5.  Israel is sending a very stern warning to a country that has stated that it wants Israel wiped from the face of the Earth.  It's an ally of Iran who has stated the same thing.
6.  Nope, Israel is protecting it's own borders and that includes the Palestinians.  

I guess I am now in support of Israel wiping the world of Bassar's Government and Irans.  Those are the only two in the middle east that have publically announced that they want to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.  Things won't cool off in the Middle East until Iran and Syria are under new management.  Don't look for Russia to come to their rescue if they keep pushing.  The ONLY reason Israel hasn't already done is you Hated Infidel Americans have asked them nicely not to.  Both Iran and Syria have decided not to play well with others so one day......   And you can keep crying in yer beer over that.  I say, the sooner Israel mops the floor with both of those countries, the better off things will be.  The Northern Africa Nations would like to see it as well.  No more 7 day war where Jordan and others go into a combined attack against Israel.  Hell,  Saudi and others just might join in and send support to Israel since they have learned to play well with others.  

We already know where the line is for Iran before the Israelites lay waste to that country.  If Iran does actually develop or obtain one single Nuke, the day or reckoning is upon them.  And the only country that might even speak ill of it would be Syria.  And if Syria declares were on Israel over it laying Iran to waste, it's next.  The only reason that Russia might not care for it is that they want Military Bases and Ports in Syria to keep up with the US Joneses.  Iran has already stated that the first country it's going to nuke is Israel.  Get it through your thick, lying skull that Israel can't afford to play your silly assed games.  Can you imagine a Israeli and Saudi attack on Iran?  It very well could happen.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is providing air support to al-Qaeda as we speak. Anything they claim must be questioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you posting from?  Sounds more like an ISIS rubbish more than anything else.  Could you be from the Syrian Capital and only wish to keep putting these conspiracy things over and over.  Each time we show your facts are more than flawed you move to something else.
> 
> I think I have given you more than enough attention and will get back to facts instead of Syrian or Russian conspiracies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not doing conspiracies. That´s something you should have learned, already. Today, Israel attacked the Syrian army that is battling al-Qaeda (HTS).
> 
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think they have a crystal ball and can predict the future.  The publish date for the article is 19.10.17.  That was nine days ago.  And no mention of the type of AC.  There is a good chance the AC involved was a F-16.  The Syrians fired a missile into Israel.  There were no deaths on either side.  It was Israel telling Syria to not fire into Israel.  When someone fires on me and I fire back, it's really bad manners to complain about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.) The 19.10 is the 19th October and not the 10th day of a mysterious 19th month.
> 2.) The Occupied Golan is not Israel but Syria, even according to your government.
> 3.) Syria does not fire into the Occupied Golan.
> 4.) Even if a shell or missile mistakenly goes there, this is not a reason to attack Syrian forces.
> 5.) Firing at the Occupied Golan is the terrorists´ way to call in air strikes.
> 6.) Israel supports the terrorists: Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You are correct but it happened days ago regardless.  Actually it happened yesterday.  Not today.
> 2.  Yes, and according to the sovereign state of Isreal.
> 3.  Firing anywhere in Israel isn't too bright
> 4.  Let's see.  Since Syria has publically stated that it wants Israel completely destroyed then that was an act of war firing that missile.
> 5.  Israel is sending a very stern warning to a country that has stated that it wants Israel wiped from the face of the Earth.  It's an ally of Iran who has stated the same thing.
> 6.  Nope, Israel is protecting it's own borders and that includes the Palestinians.
> 
> I guess I am now in support of Israel wiping the world of Bassar's Government and Irans.  Those are the only two in the middle east that have publically announced that they want to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.  Things won't cool off in the Middle East until Iran and Syria are under new management.  Don't look for Russia to come to their rescue if they keep pushing.  The ONLY reason Israel hasn't already done is you Hated Infidel Americans have asked them nicely not to.  Both Iran and Syria have decided not to play well with others so one day......   And you can keep crying in yer beer over that.  I say, the sooner Israel mops the floor with both of those countries, the better off things will be.  The Northern Africa Nations would like to see it as well.  No more 7 day war where Jordan and others go into a combined attack against Israel.  Hell,  Saudi and others just might join in and send support to Israel since they have learned to play well with others.
> 
> We already know where the line is for Iran before the Israelites lay waste to that country.  If Iran does actually develop or obtain one single Nuke, the day or reckoning is upon them.  And the only country that might even speak ill of it would be Syria.  And if Syria declares were on Israel over it laying Iran to waste, it's next.  The only reason that Russia might not care for it is that they want Military Bases and Ports in Syria to keep up with the US Joneses.  Iran has already stated that the first country it's going to nuke is Israel.  Get it through your thick, lying skull that Israel can't afford to play your silly assed games.  Can you imagine a Israeli and Saudi attack on Iran?  It very well could happen.
Click to expand...

Neither Syria nor Iran want to destroy Israel but it might ultimately be necessary to put it under new management. No shiny F-35 will save the regime. Iranian troops are deployed next to Israel´s border. Israel thinks it can defeat Syria but we both can see their fatsos can´t and they need to send terrorists and the US can´t and needs to send terrorists and Saudi Arabia can´t and needs to send terrorists and Turkey couldn´t and and needed to send terrorists and Qatar couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and Jordan couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and France couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and the UK couldn´t and needed to send terroists. And Syria crushed all their captagon zombies and wins this war. The Russian airforce will stay at least for the next 49 years in Syria. 

Your side managed to damage Syria but they lose the war. Israel better get used to it, Iran is not in a good mood.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you posting from?  Sounds more like an ISIS rubbish more than anything else.  Could you be from the Syrian Capital and only wish to keep putting these conspiracy things over and over.  Each time we show your facts are more than flawed you move to something else.
> 
> I think I have given you more than enough attention and will get back to facts instead of Syrian or Russian conspiracies.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not doing conspiracies. That´s something you should have learned, already. Today, Israel attacked the Syrian army that is battling al-Qaeda (HTS).
> 
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think they have a crystal ball and can predict the future.  The publish date for the article is 19.10.17.  That was nine days ago.  And no mention of the type of AC.  There is a good chance the AC involved was a F-16.  The Syrians fired a missile into Israel.  There were no deaths on either side.  It was Israel telling Syria to not fire into Israel.  When someone fires on me and I fire back, it's really bad manners to complain about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.) The 19.10 is the 19th October and not the 10th day of a mysterious 19th month.
> 2.) The Occupied Golan is not Israel but Syria, even according to your government.
> 3.) Syria does not fire into the Occupied Golan.
> 4.) Even if a shell or missile mistakenly goes there, this is not a reason to attack Syrian forces.
> 5.) Firing at the Occupied Golan is the terrorists´ way to call in air strikes.
> 6.) Israel supports the terrorists: Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You are correct but it happened days ago regardless.  Actually it happened yesterday.  Not today.
> 2.  Yes, and according to the sovereign state of Isreal.
> 3.  Firing anywhere in Israel isn't too bright
> 4.  Let's see.  Since Syria has publically stated that it wants Israel completely destroyed then that was an act of war firing that missile.
> 5.  Israel is sending a very stern warning to a country that has stated that it wants Israel wiped from the face of the Earth.  It's an ally of Iran who has stated the same thing.
> 6.  Nope, Israel is protecting it's own borders and that includes the Palestinians.
> 
> I guess I am now in support of Israel wiping the world of Bassar's Government and Irans.  Those are the only two in the middle east that have publically announced that they want to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.  Things won't cool off in the Middle East until Iran and Syria are under new management.  Don't look for Russia to come to their rescue if they keep pushing.  The ONLY reason Israel hasn't already done is you Hated Infidel Americans have asked them nicely not to.  Both Iran and Syria have decided not to play well with others so one day......   And you can keep crying in yer beer over that.  I say, the sooner Israel mops the floor with both of those countries, the better off things will be.  The Northern Africa Nations would like to see it as well.  No more 7 day war where Jordan and others go into a combined attack against Israel.  Hell,  Saudi and others just might join in and send support to Israel since they have learned to play well with others.
> 
> We already know where the line is for Iran before the Israelites lay waste to that country.  If Iran does actually develop or obtain one single Nuke, the day or reckoning is upon them.  And the only country that might even speak ill of it would be Syria.  And if Syria declares were on Israel over it laying Iran to waste, it's next.  The only reason that Russia might not care for it is that they want Military Bases and Ports in Syria to keep up with the US Joneses.  Iran has already stated that the first country it's going to nuke is Israel.  Get it through your thick, lying skull that Israel can't afford to play your silly assed games.  Can you imagine a Israeli and Saudi attack on Iran?  It very well could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Syria nor Iran want to destroy Israel but it might ultimately be necessary to put it under new management. No shiny F-35 will save the regime. Iranian troops are deployed next to Israel´s border. Israel thinks it can defeat Syria but we both can see their fatsos can´t and they need to send terrorists and the US can´t and needs to send terrorists and Saudi Arabia can´t and needs to send terrorists and Turkey couldn´t and and needed to send terrorists and Qatar couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and Jordan couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and France couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and the UK couldn´t and needed to send terroists. And Syria crushed all their captagon zombies and wins this war. The Russian airforce will stay at least for the next 49 years in Syria.
> 
> Your side managed to damage Syria but they lose the war. Israel better get used to it, Iran is not in a good mood.
Click to expand...


Can't you tell us your truth without it being laced with Lies?  You use just enoug truth laced in your lies to almost make it believable.  The message you are saying is, "Wipe out the Jews".  And that is your whole message.  It's not a proud message when you consider the old Calphates that ruled before the Mongols invaded.  You know, the time that Jews and Muslems lived as brothers.  Before the criminal element took over the Islamists and the Jews became enemies.  Israelites are Arabs and always have been.  You seem to ignore it would be Arab killing Arab.  You seem to forget that Iran and Syria are Persians.  That means that you will also have to kill all the other Arab countries.  And your cowardly actions only gets people dead and not Jews or Arabs.  

I have spent enought time with you, terrorist.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not doing conspiracies. That´s something you should have learned, already. Today, Israel attacked the Syrian army that is battling al-Qaeda (HTS).
> 
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must think they have a crystal ball and can predict the future.  The publish date for the article is 19.10.17.  That was nine days ago.  And no mention of the type of AC.  There is a good chance the AC involved was a F-16.  The Syrians fired a missile into Israel.  There were no deaths on either side.  It was Israel telling Syria to not fire into Israel.  When someone fires on me and I fire back, it's really bad manners to complain about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.) The 19.10 is the 19th October and not the 10th day of a mysterious 19th month.
> 2.) The Occupied Golan is not Israel but Syria, even according to your government.
> 3.) Syria does not fire into the Occupied Golan.
> 4.) Even if a shell or missile mistakenly goes there, this is not a reason to attack Syrian forces.
> 5.) Firing at the Occupied Golan is the terrorists´ way to call in air strikes.
> 6.) Israel supports the terrorists: Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You are correct but it happened days ago regardless.  Actually it happened yesterday.  Not today.
> 2.  Yes, and according to the sovereign state of Isreal.
> 3.  Firing anywhere in Israel isn't too bright
> 4.  Let's see.  Since Syria has publically stated that it wants Israel completely destroyed then that was an act of war firing that missile.
> 5.  Israel is sending a very stern warning to a country that has stated that it wants Israel wiped from the face of the Earth.  It's an ally of Iran who has stated the same thing.
> 6.  Nope, Israel is protecting it's own borders and that includes the Palestinians.
> 
> I guess I am now in support of Israel wiping the world of Bassar's Government and Irans.  Those are the only two in the middle east that have publically announced that they want to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.  Things won't cool off in the Middle East until Iran and Syria are under new management.  Don't look for Russia to come to their rescue if they keep pushing.  The ONLY reason Israel hasn't already done is you Hated Infidel Americans have asked them nicely not to.  Both Iran and Syria have decided not to play well with others so one day......   And you can keep crying in yer beer over that.  I say, the sooner Israel mops the floor with both of those countries, the better off things will be.  The Northern Africa Nations would like to see it as well.  No more 7 day war where Jordan and others go into a combined attack against Israel.  Hell,  Saudi and others just might join in and send support to Israel since they have learned to play well with others.
> 
> We already know where the line is for Iran before the Israelites lay waste to that country.  If Iran does actually develop or obtain one single Nuke, the day or reckoning is upon them.  And the only country that might even speak ill of it would be Syria.  And if Syria declares were on Israel over it laying Iran to waste, it's next.  The only reason that Russia might not care for it is that they want Military Bases and Ports in Syria to keep up with the US Joneses.  Iran has already stated that the first country it's going to nuke is Israel.  Get it through your thick, lying skull that Israel can't afford to play your silly assed games.  Can you imagine a Israeli and Saudi attack on Iran?  It very well could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Syria nor Iran want to destroy Israel but it might ultimately be necessary to put it under new management. No shiny F-35 will save the regime. Iranian troops are deployed next to Israel´s border. Israel thinks it can defeat Syria but we both can see their fatsos can´t and they need to send terrorists and the US can´t and needs to send terrorists and Saudi Arabia can´t and needs to send terrorists and Turkey couldn´t and and needed to send terrorists and Qatar couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and Jordan couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and France couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and the UK couldn´t and needed to send terroists. And Syria crushed all their captagon zombies and wins this war. The Russian airforce will stay at least for the next 49 years in Syria.
> 
> Your side managed to damage Syria but they lose the war. Israel better get used to it, Iran is not in a good mood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you tell us your truth without it being laced with Lies?  You use just enoug truth laced in your lies to almost make it believable.  The message you are saying is, "Wipe out the Jews".  And that is your whole message.  It's not a proud message when you consider the old Calphates that ruled before the Mongols invaded.  You know, the time that Jews and Muslems lived as brothers.  Before the criminal element took over the Islamists and the Jews became enemies.  Israelites are Arabs and always have been.  You seem to ignore it would be Arab killing Arab.  You seem to forget that Iran and Syria are Persians.  That means that you will also have to kill all the other Arab countries.  And your cowardly actions only gets people dead and not Jews or Arabs.
> 
> I have spent enought time with you, terrorist.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You are another victim of the narrative that those criticizing the leadership in Israel are anti-semites who want to kill Jews. This is not even enough to be called childish.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must think they have a crystal ball and can predict the future.  The publish date for the article is 19.10.17.  That was nine days ago.  And no mention of the type of AC.  There is a good chance the AC involved was a F-16.  The Syrians fired a missile into Israel.  There were no deaths on either side.  It was Israel telling Syria to not fire into Israel.  When someone fires on me and I fire back, it's really bad manners to complain about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) The 19.10 is the 19th October and not the 10th day of a mysterious 19th month.
> 2.) The Occupied Golan is not Israel but Syria, even according to your government.
> 3.) Syria does not fire into the Occupied Golan.
> 4.) Even if a shell or missile mistakenly goes there, this is not a reason to attack Syrian forces.
> 5.) Firing at the Occupied Golan is the terrorists´ way to call in air strikes.
> 6.) Israel supports the terrorists: Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You are correct but it happened days ago regardless.  Actually it happened yesterday.  Not today.
> 2.  Yes, and according to the sovereign state of Isreal.
> 3.  Firing anywhere in Israel isn't too bright
> 4.  Let's see.  Since Syria has publically stated that it wants Israel completely destroyed then that was an act of war firing that missile.
> 5.  Israel is sending a very stern warning to a country that has stated that it wants Israel wiped from the face of the Earth.  It's an ally of Iran who has stated the same thing.
> 6.  Nope, Israel is protecting it's own borders and that includes the Palestinians.
> 
> I guess I am now in support of Israel wiping the world of Bassar's Government and Irans.  Those are the only two in the middle east that have publically announced that they want to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.  Things won't cool off in the Middle East until Iran and Syria are under new management.  Don't look for Russia to come to their rescue if they keep pushing.  The ONLY reason Israel hasn't already done is you Hated Infidel Americans have asked them nicely not to.  Both Iran and Syria have decided not to play well with others so one day......   And you can keep crying in yer beer over that.  I say, the sooner Israel mops the floor with both of those countries, the better off things will be.  The Northern Africa Nations would like to see it as well.  No more 7 day war where Jordan and others go into a combined attack against Israel.  Hell,  Saudi and others just might join in and send support to Israel since they have learned to play well with others.
> 
> We already know where the line is for Iran before the Israelites lay waste to that country.  If Iran does actually develop or obtain one single Nuke, the day or reckoning is upon them.  And the only country that might even speak ill of it would be Syria.  And if Syria declares were on Israel over it laying Iran to waste, it's next.  The only reason that Russia might not care for it is that they want Military Bases and Ports in Syria to keep up with the US Joneses.  Iran has already stated that the first country it's going to nuke is Israel.  Get it through your thick, lying skull that Israel can't afford to play your silly assed games.  Can you imagine a Israeli and Saudi attack on Iran?  It very well could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Syria nor Iran want to destroy Israel but it might ultimately be necessary to put it under new management. No shiny F-35 will save the regime. Iranian troops are deployed next to Israel´s border. Israel thinks it can defeat Syria but we both can see their fatsos can´t and they need to send terrorists and the US can´t and needs to send terrorists and Saudi Arabia can´t and needs to send terrorists and Turkey couldn´t and and needed to send terrorists and Qatar couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and Jordan couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and France couldn´t and needed to send terrorists and the UK couldn´t and needed to send terroists. And Syria crushed all their captagon zombies and wins this war. The Russian airforce will stay at least for the next 49 years in Syria.
> 
> Your side managed to damage Syria but they lose the war. Israel better get used to it, Iran is not in a good mood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you tell us your truth without it being laced with Lies?  You use just enoug truth laced in your lies to almost make it believable.  The message you are saying is, "Wipe out the Jews".  And that is your whole message.  It's not a proud message when you consider the old Calphates that ruled before the Mongols invaded.  You know, the time that Jews and Muslems lived as brothers.  Before the criminal element took over the Islamists and the Jews became enemies.  Israelites are Arabs and always have been.  You seem to ignore it would be Arab killing Arab.  You seem to forget that Iran and Syria are Persians.  That means that you will also have to kill all the other Arab countries.  And your cowardly actions only gets people dead and not Jews or Arabs.
> 
> I have spent enought time with you, terrorist.  Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are another victim of the narrative that those criticizing the leadership in Israel are anti-semites who want to kill Jews. This is not even enough to be called childish.
Click to expand...


This makes absolutely no sense.  I have spent enough time with you Have a nice day.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> T
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army


Brilliant logic. You have some bullshit biased website that made something up based on lots of conjecture and spinning of facts, but since nobody else has bothered to do anything than roll their eyes it must be valid.

You're a moron.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> Of course, this source is not neutral but there is no reason to assume any neutral source could know it better:
> Syrian Arab Army
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant logic. You have some bullshit biased website that made something up based on lots of conjecture and spinning of facts, but since nobody else has bothered to do anything than roll their eyes it must be valid.
> 
> You're a moron.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn´t they be credible?


----------



## DrainBamage

Look up the word "credible" and you might find enlightenment. Granted I'm talking to the same dumbfuck who bought into the Iran stealth fighter press releases, but hey....


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Look up the word "credible" and you might find enlightenment. Granted I'm talking to the same dumbfuck who bought into the Iran stealth fighter press releases, but hey....


So only Americans are credible? And Iran posting a video of a small stealth fighter flying bombs your pride? As if "stealth" was something magic. The Germans used it already in WWII. You are 40 years late.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> So only Americans are credible?


Nope, didn't say that either.



Bleipriester said:


> And Iran posting a video of a small stealth fighter flying bombs your pride?


It has nothing to do with my pride, and a lot to do with your credibility and the credibility of the sources you follow. You actually believed that was a real plane, a combination of a RC model and a mockup with glaring flaws that any moron could see. You were so proud, it's hilarious.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only Americans are credible?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't say that either.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Iran posting a video of a small stealth fighter flying bombs your pride?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has nothing to do with my pride, and a lot to do with your credibility and the credibility of the sources you follow. You actually believed that was a real plane, a combination of a RC model and a mockup with glaring flaws that any moron could see. You were so proud, it's hilarious.
Click to expand...


----------



## DrainBamage

Instead of posting more photos of the Iranian model plane, save time and change your signature to "I'm gullible" okay?


----------



## DrainBamage

Air Force F-35s coming to Japan in November

WASHINGTON — The Air Force’s F-35 is making its operational debut in the Asia-Pacific region, with 12 A-models set to arrive at Kadena Air Base, Japan, early this November for a six-month deployment. More than 300 airmen from the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah — including pilots, maintainers and other personnel — will deploy to Kadena to support the aircraft, Pacific Air Forces announced. “The F-35A gives the joint warfighter unprecedented global precision attack capability against current and emerging threats while complementing our air superiority fleet,” said Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, Pacific Air Forces commander. “The airframe is ideally suited to meet our command’s obligations, and we look forward to integrating it into our training and operations.”

USAF was waiting on 3F software to station a squadron in the Pacific, these planes will join the USMC F-35Bs that are already stationed at Iwakuni.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Air Force F-35s coming to Japan in November
> 
> WASHINGTON — The Air Force’s F-35 is making its operational debut in the Asia-Pacific region, with 12 A-models set to arrive at Kadena Air Base, Japan, early this November for a six-month deployment. More than 300 airmen from the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah — including pilots, maintainers and other personnel — will deploy to Kadena to support the aircraft, Pacific Air Forces announced. “The F-35A gives the joint warfighter unprecedented global precision attack capability against current and emerging threats while complementing our air superiority fleet,” said Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, Pacific Air Forces commander. “The airframe is ideally suited to meet our command’s obligations, and we look forward to integrating it into our training and operations.”
> 
> USAF was waiting on 3F software to station a squadron in the Pacific, these planes will join the USMC F-35Bs that are already stationed at Iwakuni.




They waited until the 3F was installed before the deployment.  That means, they can handle being stealthy or load up with Aim-9X, external bombs, fire the gun and more.  So much for the doomsayers.  And since it's the A model, it can pull 9+G turns making it very deadly.    At the old 7G rating it was slightly better in  a dogfight than the F-18.  Now it's slightly better than the F-16 Which is what they were gearing up for.

Damn, don't you hate it when the F-35 does something right for a change.


----------



## DrainBamage

It gets SDB as well.

Eight rounds all internal, in addition to the AIM-120s.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> It gets SDB as well.
> 
> Eight rounds all internal, in addition to the AIM-120s.



I didn't mention the SBDs and Aim-120 since even the Mod 2 covers those internal.


----------



## DrainBamage

Yeah AIM-120 internal has been around since 3b, was one of the original three weapons along with GBU-12 JDAM and GBU-32 Paveway.

3F lets F-35A deploy SDB, and F-35C deploy JSOW, and other weapons like external carriage and AIM-9X.

I think SDB2 comes in block 4, along with the intl partner weapons from UK, Turkey, etc.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Yeah AIM-120 internal has been around since 3b, was one of the original three weapons along with GBU-12 JDAM and GBU-32 Paveway.
> 
> 3F lets F-35A deploy SDB, and F-35C deploy JSOW, and other weapons like external carriage and AIM-9X.
> 
> I think SDB2 comes in block 4, along with the intl partner weapons from UK, Turkey, etc.



I believe block 4 has already been installed on my of them already.  funny, the way they have done the blocks.  They have already dropped the SBDs on the training range.


----------



## Bleipriester

Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.


Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah


Great tool for the job, especially since Syria relies on Russian junk.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah
> 
> 
> 
> Great tool for the job, especially since Syria relies on Russian junk.
Click to expand...

Lost its first battle against a Syrian S-200 "junk" missile.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah



You are partially correct.  The US give Israel 3.15B each year.  That's about 30 F-35s, give or take.  The problem has been, Israel has been a limiting factor in the Mid East for years.  Right now, there are only 2 countries that want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and that is Iran and Syria.  It used to almost all of them.  But the others have figured out that Israel is much less of a threat to them than Iran and Syria poses.  Israel has been getting by with our and others contributions since they really haven't had much of natural resources.  But recently, there was a huge discovery of oil fields making Israel a rich country.  

All countries that receive the F-35 have to do some "Rolling Yer Own" for mods on the F-35.  You honestly believe that the US is going to send and export F-35 with all the bells and whistles?  It doesn't work that way.  Israel just happens to be one of the few countries that have the capability to do a decent roll yer own job.  

Right now, both Iran and Syria are supporting Hamas and Hezbolla who are just a bit busy right now.  Otherwise, they would be attacking Israel like they always do.  The scary part of all this is, with the military support both have received, the next time they attack they will be better equipped.  Israel will have to fire it up on all cylinders.  And you can pretty well kiss Hamas and Hezbella's ass goodbye at that point.  Sooner or later, Israel will have to invade Syria just to prevent the support of these two terrorist groups.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah
> 
> 
> 
> Great tool for the job, especially since Syria relies on Russian junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lost its first battle against a Syrian S-200 "junk" missile.
Click to expand...


First of all, the S-200 never has been junk.  Second, the trash that comes out of Syria is probably untrue.  It's put out by them so that fools with hatred for Jews.  I can see where your support for out US White Supremacy groups would lie.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are partially correct.  The US give Israel 3.15B each year.  That's about 30 F-35s, give or take.  The problem has been, Israel has been a limiting factor in the Mid East for years.  Right now, there are only 2 countries that want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and that is Iran and Syria.  It used to almost all of them.  But the others have figured out that Israel is much less of a threat to them than Iran and Syria poses.  Israel has been getting by with our and others contributions since they really haven't had much of natural resources.  But recently, there was a huge discovery of oil fields making Israel a rich country.
> 
> All countries that receive the F-35 have to do some "Rolling Yer Own" for mods on the F-35.  You honestly believe that the US is going to send and export F-35 with all the bells and whistles?  It doesn't work that way.  Israel just happens to be one of the few countries that have the capability to do a decent roll yer own job.
> 
> Right now, both Iran and Syria are supporting Hamas and Hezbolla who are just a bit busy right now.  Otherwise, they would be attacking Israel like they always do.  The scary part of all this is, with the military support both have received, the next time they attack they will be better equipped.  Israel will have to fire it up on all cylinders.  And you can pretty well kiss Hamas and Hezbella's ass goodbye at that point.  Sooner or later, Israel will have to invade Syria just to prevent the support of these two terrorist groups.
Click to expand...

38 billion go to Israel in 10 years, mainly in form of F-35. Your tax money. Of course, the aggressors are always the others. Truly peaceful Zionist regime never started a war. However, the Syrian war is a good example, why airstrikes are ineffective against an guerrilla enemy. You can have even the best aircraft and you still need capable ground troops. After 6 years of fighting heavily supported terrorist armies, the Syrian army and Hezbollah are certainly the most capable forces in the ME. Any attempt by Israel to go for SAA and Hezbollah will result in failures. Israel should now end the occupation of Syrian and Lebanese soil. 

Here is how Israel tries to wipe Syria off the face of the earth:

"He then proceeds to analyze the weaknesses of Arab countries, by citing what he perceives to be flaws in their national and social structures, concluding that Israel should aim to bring about the fragmentation of the Arab world into a mosaic of ethnic and confessional groupings. 'Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation,' he argued, would prove to be advantageous to Israel in the short term. He saw contemporary events in Lebanon as a foreshadowing of future developments overall throughout the Arab world. The upheavals would create a precedent for guiding Israeli short-term and long-term strategies. Specifically, he asserted that the immediate aim of policy should be the dissolution of the military capabilities of Arab states east of Israel, while the primary long-term goal should work towards the formation of unique areas defined in terms of ethnonational and religious identities."

Yinon Plan - Wikipedia








"Israel has since the onset of the war on Syria in 2011 used both the occupied Golan and the Sheeba Farms area to provide logistical, tactical and direct military support for the Muslim Brotherhood linked Free Syrian Army as well as Jabhat al-Nusrah and other Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist / mercenary brigades.

In October 2013 the Israeli occupied Golan and Sheeba Farms were used to infiltrate some 40,000 Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam fighters / mercenaries into Lebanon and the opening of a new, major battlefront in the Qalamoun region at the Lebanese – Syrian border."

Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah
> 
> 
> 
> Great tool for the job, especially since Syria relies on Russian junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lost its first battle against a Syrian S-200 "junk" missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the S-200 never has been junk.  Second, the trash that comes out of Syria is probably untrue.  It's put out by them so that fools with hatred for Jews.  I can see where your support for out US White Supremacy groups would lie.
Click to expand...

We have already discussed that and concluded that a bird strike is not likely.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are partially correct.  The US give Israel 3.15B each year.  That's about 30 F-35s, give or take.  The problem has been, Israel has been a limiting factor in the Mid East for years.  Right now, there are only 2 countries that want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and that is Iran and Syria.  It used to almost all of them.  But the others have figured out that Israel is much less of a threat to them than Iran and Syria poses.  Israel has been getting by with our and others contributions since they really haven't had much of natural resources.  But recently, there was a huge discovery of oil fields making Israel a rich country.
> 
> All countries that receive the F-35 have to do some "Rolling Yer Own" for mods on the F-35.  You honestly believe that the US is going to send and export F-35 with all the bells and whistles?  It doesn't work that way.  Israel just happens to be one of the few countries that have the capability to do a decent roll yer own job.
> 
> Right now, both Iran and Syria are supporting Hamas and Hezbolla who are just a bit busy right now.  Otherwise, they would be attacking Israel like they always do.  The scary part of all this is, with the military support both have received, the next time they attack they will be better equipped.  Israel will have to fire it up on all cylinders.  And you can pretty well kiss Hamas and Hezbella's ass goodbye at that point.  Sooner or later, Israel will have to invade Syria just to prevent the support of these two terrorist groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 38 billion go to Israel in 10 years, mainly in form of F-35. Your tax money. Of course, the aggressors are always the others. Truly peaceful Zionist regime never started a war. However, the Syrian war is a good example, why airstrikes are ineffective against an guerrilla enemy. You can have even the best aircraft and you still need capable ground troops. After 6 years of fighting heavily supported terrorist armies, the Syrian army and Hezbollah are certainly the most capable forces in the ME. Any attempt by Israel to go for SAA and Hezbollah will result in failures. Israel should now end the occupation of Syrian and Lebanese soil.
> 
> Here is how Israel tries to wipe Syria off the face of the earth:
> 
> "He then proceeds to analyze the weaknesses of Arab countries, by citing what he perceives to be flaws in their national and social structures, concluding that Israel should aim to bring about the fragmentation of the Arab world into a mosaic of ethnic and confessional groupings. 'Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation,' he argued, would prove to be advantageous to Israel in the short term. He saw contemporary events in Lebanon as a foreshadowing of future developments overall throughout the Arab world. The upheavals would create a precedent for guiding Israeli short-term and long-term strategies. Specifically, he asserted that the immediate aim of policy should be the dissolution of the military capabilities of Arab states east of Israel, while the primary long-term goal should work towards the formation of unique areas defined in terms of ethnonational and religious identities."
> 
> Yinon Plan - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Israel has since the onset of the war on Syria in 2011 used both the occupied Golan and the Sheeba Farms area to provide logistical, tactical and direct military support for the Muslim Brotherhood linked Free Syrian Army as well as Jabhat al-Nusrah and other Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist / mercenary brigades.
> 
> In October 2013 the Israeli occupied Golan and Sheeba Farms were used to infiltrate some 40,000 Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam fighters / mercenaries into Lebanon and the opening of a new, major battlefront in the Qalamoun region at the Lebanese – Syrian border."
> 
> Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
Click to expand...


I can identify BS when I see it.  Propaganda works best when you start out with a lie and sprinkle just enough truth in it to fool the weak minded.  This discussion is over.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah
> 
> 
> 
> Great tool for the job, especially since Syria relies on Russian junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lost its first battle against a Syrian S-200 "junk" missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the S-200 never has been junk.  Second, the trash that comes out of Syria is probably untrue.  It's put out by them so that fools with hatred for Jews.  I can see where your support for out US White Supremacy groups would lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have already discussed that and concluded that a bird strike is not likely.
Click to expand...


What the general consensus was that we don't know.  And frankly, I don't care.  The US pilots wouldn't have made the mistakes for even a S-500 to be able to hit a F-35.  During Red Flag, they made that mistake ONCE.  And then for the next hundred or so flights, didn't make it again.  If Israel needs a refresher course, I imagine that a US conus based training class can be provided.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Lost its first battle against a Syrian S-200 "junk" missile.


Of course they didn't, you just keep chanting this because you're a gullible fool who laps up every conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe.

You're the same retard who swallowed hook line and sinker Iran's toy airplane hoax.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> We have already discussed that and concluded that a bird strike is not likely.


You concluding it was so is the best evidence there is that it isn't so, since almost everything you post turns out to be factually incorrect.

You're saying an F-35 got shot down, and your evidence is some author's theories from some silly propaganda newspaper. It's perfect for the uneducated masses that are it's target demographic, like you.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, the only country to receive their F-35 for free and the only country allowed to modify the F-35, readies its own F-35 variant for the purpose of prolonging the war in Syria.
> 
> Israel prepares to release new aircraft to combat Hezbollah
> 
> 
> 
> Great tool for the job, especially since Syria relies on Russian junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lost its first battle against a Syrian S-200 "junk" missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the S-200 never has been junk.  Second, the trash that comes out of Syria is probably untrue.  It's put out by them so that fools with hatred for Jews.  I can see where your support for out US White Supremacy groups would lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have already discussed that and concluded that a bird strike is not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the general consensus was that we don't know.  And frankly, I don't care.  The US pilots wouldn't have made the mistakes for even a S-500 to be able to hit a F-35.  During Red Flag, they made that mistake ONCE.  And then for the next hundred or so flights, didn't make it again.  If Israel needs a refresher course, I imagine that a US conus based training class can be provided.
Click to expand...

Since you call any source propaganda that doesn´t match your view, the discussion is over for now.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already discussed that and concluded that a bird strike is not likely.
> 
> 
> 
> You concluding it was so is the best evidence there is that it isn't so, since almost everything you post turns out to be factually incorrect.
> 
> You're saying an F-35 got shot down, and your evidence is some author's theories from some silly propaganda newspaper. It's perfect for the uneducated masses that are it's target demographic, like you.
Click to expand...

No, I didn´t say a F-35 was shot down. It was hit nevertheless. You know, missiles do not necessarily directly hit the target.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Since you call any source propaganda that doesn´t match your view, the discussion is over for now.


Well your first link was to a facebook page of The Syrian Arab Army. Do you know what journalism is? I don't think you do. Your second link was to DonBass news agency, which links to Southfront a known Russian propaganda site.




Bleipriester said:


> No, I didn´t say a F-35 was shot down. It was hit nevertheless.


Your proof being conspiracy theories on the internet that have become a big echo chamber of link backs.

You're really gullible.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you call any source propaganda that doesn´t match your view, the discussion is over for now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well your first link was to a facebook page of The Syrian Arab Army. Do you know what journalism is? I don't think you do. Your second link was to DonBass news agency, which links to Southfront a known Russian propaganda site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn´t say a F-35 was shot down. It was hit nevertheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof being conspiracy theories on the internet that have become a big echo chamber of link backs.
> 
> You're really gullible.
Click to expand...

The sources in question are:

1. Wikipedia

2. Regular media outlet


----------



## DrainBamage

You link goes to the Syrian Army Facebook page, and what you call is "regular media outlet" is always in question, since you're the moron who fell for the fake Iran stealth plane thing. How few brain cells did that take?


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> You link goes to the Syrian Army Facebook page, and what you call is "regular media outlet" is always in question, since you're the moron who fell for the fake Iran stealth plane thing. How few brain cells did that take?


Yinon Plan - Wikipedia
Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> You link goes to the Syrian Army Facebook page, and what you call is "regular media outlet" is always in question, since you're the moron who fell for the fake Iran stealth plane thing. How few brain cells did that take?
> 
> 
> 
> Yinon Plan - Wikipedia
> Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
Click to expand...


Easy answer on both of these.

The Yinon Plan wasn't really a plan.  It was one persons view on what was once a prediction that never came to be.  Since then, Egypt, Saudi Arabian and many other recognize Israel as a Country and right to exist.  The only two countries that don't are Iran and Syria and they are enemies of the entire Middle East and Northern Africa countries.  Iran's days are numbered.  The second they develop even ONE Nuclear Weapon, the war begins with Israel and Saudi bringing it to them.  Others may join in overthrowing Iran.  This may happen within the next 5 years unless Iran cleans it's act up.  Syria only exist because the Russians demand it.  Even Russia is finding it very draining on their meager resources.  Sooner or later, Syria will fall as well.

Now for the Clash.  Hezbolla are Lebonese.  They have no claim to the Sheeba Farms.  Palistinians may have but not anyone from Lebanon.  Once the Syrians are brought into the fold, the Palastinains will finally recognize Israels right to exist.  And they just might get their nation.  Until then, don't expect Israel to agree to that since it means that their still going to have the threat of Terrorism in their face.  Hamas days are also numbered.  At some point, Egypt is going to have enough of it and go with Israel to just get rid of them.  Putting up with those criminally insane Hamas should not be tolerated.  Hell, even Palistinians can't get along with them hence the way the terroritories are laid out.  

When Iran and Syria finally learn to play well with others things will be completely different and a redrawing of the map might happen to a more sane map.  The Brits screwed the pooch in 1948.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Yinon Plan wasn't really a plan.  It was one persons view on what was once a prediction that never came to be.  Since then, Egypt, Saudi Arabian and many other recognize Israel as a Country and right to exist.  The only two countries that don't are Iran and Syria and they are enemies of the entire Middle East and Northern Africa countries.  Iran's days are numbered.  The second they develop even ONE Nuclear Weapon, the war begins with Israel and Saudi bringing it to them.  Others may join in overthrowing Iran.  This may happen within the next 5 years unless Iran cleans it's act up.  Syria only exist because the Russians demand it.  Even Russia is finding it very draining on their meager resources.  Sooner or later, Syria will fall as well.


So why is just this happening in Syria and Iraq?
Iran today is a strong military power. They don´t fear Saudi Arabia and Israel who get ass-kicked by Houthis respectively Hezbollah. Many Saudi bases were already destroyed by Yemeni missiles. Combat strength of Saudi and Israeli troops is low. Iranian troops are deployed next to the occupied Golan Heights.  




Daryl Hunt said:


> Now for the Clash.  Hezbolla are Lebonese.  They have no claim to the Sheeba Farms.  Palistinians may have but not anyone from Lebanon.  Once the Syrians are brought into the fold, the Palastinains will finally recognize Israels right to exist.  And they just might get their nation.  Until then, don't expect Israel to agree to that since it means that their still going to have the threat of Terrorism in their face.  Hamas days are also numbered.  At some point, Egypt is going to have enough of it and go with Israel to just get rid of them.  Putting up with those criminally insane Hamas should not be tolerated.  Hell, even Palistinians can't get along with them hence the way the terroritories are laid out.


I posted the article because it shows how the Israeli regime fights Syria: With al-Qaeda.




Daryl Hunt said:


> When Iran and Syria finally learn to play well with others things will be completely different and a redrawing of the map might happen to a more sane map.  The Brits screwed the pooch in 1948.


There will be an axis reaching from Tehran to Beirut.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yinon Plan wasn't really a plan.  It was one persons view on what was once a prediction that never came to be.  Since then, Egypt, Saudi Arabian and many other recognize Israel as a Country and right to exist.  The only two countries that don't are Iran and Syria and they are enemies of the entire Middle East and Northern Africa countries.  Iran's days are numbered.  The second they develop even ONE Nuclear Weapon, the war begins with Israel and Saudi bringing it to them.  Others may join in overthrowing Iran.  This may happen within the next 5 years unless Iran cleans it's act up.  Syria only exist because the Russians demand it.  Even Russia is finding it very draining on their meager resources.  Sooner or later, Syria will fall as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is just this happening in Syria and Iraq?
> Iran today is a strong military power. They don´t fear Saudi Arabia and Israel who get ass-kicked by Houthis respectively Hezbollah. Many Saudi bases were already destroyed by Yemeni missiles. Combat strength of Saudi and Israeli troops is low. Iranian troops are deployed next to the occupied Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the Clash.  Hezbolla are Lebonese.  They have no claim to the Sheeba Farms.  Palistinians may have but not anyone from Lebanon.  Once the Syrians are brought into the fold, the Palastinains will finally recognize Israels right to exist.  And they just might get their nation.  Until then, don't expect Israel to agree to that since it means that their still going to have the threat of Terrorism in their face.  Hamas days are also numbered.  At some point, Egypt is going to have enough of it and go with Israel to just get rid of them.  Putting up with those criminally insane Hamas should not be tolerated.  Hell, even Palistinians can't get along with them hence the way the terroritories are laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the article because it shows how the Israeli regime fights Syria: With al-Qaeda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Iran and Syria finally learn to play well with others things will be completely different and a redrawing of the map might happen to a more sane map.  The Brits screwed the pooch in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be an axis reaching from Tehran to Beirut.
Click to expand...


First of all, You have to look at the map.  Persia is made up of Iran, Iraq, Lebonon and Syria.  All the other are either Stans or Arabian.  Iraq is the melting point between Persia and Arabia.  The Brits blew it big time when they did the seperation.  It really should have been partitioned into 4 different countries for the 4 major religions.  

The Arab Nations have all recognized Israel's right to exist.  The 4 Persian countries have not.  During the time that the Arabs controlled the Middle Easter, everyone pretty well lived in peace.  During the times that the Persians ruled it was war after war.  For over a thousand years there was peace in the area.  This includes Muslims and Jews.  

Hamas and Hezbolla are both supported by 3 of the four Persian countries.  When Hamas and Huzbolla are taken care of then things will quiet back down.  Of course first Iran, Syria and Lebonon have to be handle.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yinon Plan wasn't really a plan.  It was one persons view on what was once a prediction that never came to be.  Since then, Egypt, Saudi Arabian and many other recognize Israel as a Country and right to exist.  The only two countries that don't are Iran and Syria and they are enemies of the entire Middle East and Northern Africa countries.  Iran's days are numbered.  The second they develop even ONE Nuclear Weapon, the war begins with Israel and Saudi bringing it to them.  Others may join in overthrowing Iran.  This may happen within the next 5 years unless Iran cleans it's act up.  Syria only exist because the Russians demand it.  Even Russia is finding it very draining on their meager resources.  Sooner or later, Syria will fall as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is just this happening in Syria and Iraq?
> Iran today is a strong military power. They don´t fear Saudi Arabia and Israel who get ass-kicked by Houthis respectively Hezbollah. Many Saudi bases were already destroyed by Yemeni missiles. Combat strength of Saudi and Israeli troops is low. Iranian troops are deployed next to the occupied Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the Clash.  Hezbolla are Lebonese.  They have no claim to the Sheeba Farms.  Palistinians may have but not anyone from Lebanon.  Once the Syrians are brought into the fold, the Palastinains will finally recognize Israels right to exist.  And they just might get their nation.  Until then, don't expect Israel to agree to that since it means that their still going to have the threat of Terrorism in their face.  Hamas days are also numbered.  At some point, Egypt is going to have enough of it and go with Israel to just get rid of them.  Putting up with those criminally insane Hamas should not be tolerated.  Hell, even Palistinians can't get along with them hence the way the terroritories are laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the article because it shows how the Israeli regime fights Syria: With al-Qaeda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Iran and Syria finally learn to play well with others things will be completely different and a redrawing of the map might happen to a more sane map.  The Brits screwed the pooch in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be an axis reaching from Tehran to Beirut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, You have to look at the map.  Persia is made up of Iran, Iraq, Lebonon and Syria.  All the other are either Stans or Arabian.  Iraq is the melting point between Persia and Arabia.  The Brits blew it big time when they did the seperation.  It really should have been partitioned into 4 different countries for the 4 major religions.
> 
> The Arab Nations have all recognized Israel's right to exist.  The 4 Persian countries have not.  During the time that the Arabs controlled the Middle Easter, everyone pretty well lived in peace.  During the times that the Persians ruled it was war after war.  For over a thousand years there was peace in the area.  This includes Muslims and Jews.
> 
> Hamas and Hezbolla are both supported by 3 of the four Persian countries.  When Hamas and Huzbolla are taken care of then things will quiet back down.  Of course first Iran, Syria and Lebonon have to be handle.
Click to expand...

Israel does not recognize Syria and forbids Israelis to travel to Syria.

One of the first things President Bashar Assad did on the international stage was to offer Israel recognition.

"I have made it clear that when there is a comprehensive and real peace that restores rights to each side in the region, the recognition (of Israel by Syria) and normal relations will become just as natural as those between two states and two people," said Assad. 

"We want the Golan Heights, which is part of Syrian territory. Certain people want to know what are the conditions of the Syrian side. But Syria does not impose any condition. We have the rights (to it)," he said."
Assad: Syria to Recognize Israel if Real Peace Offered


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yinon Plan wasn't really a plan.  It was one persons view on what was once a prediction that never came to be.  Since then, Egypt, Saudi Arabian and many other recognize Israel as a Country and right to exist.  The only two countries that don't are Iran and Syria and they are enemies of the entire Middle East and Northern Africa countries.  Iran's days are numbered.  The second they develop even ONE Nuclear Weapon, the war begins with Israel and Saudi bringing it to them.  Others may join in overthrowing Iran.  This may happen within the next 5 years unless Iran cleans it's act up.  Syria only exist because the Russians demand it.  Even Russia is finding it very draining on their meager resources.  Sooner or later, Syria will fall as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is just this happening in Syria and Iraq?
> Iran today is a strong military power. They don´t fear Saudi Arabia and Israel who get ass-kicked by Houthis respectively Hezbollah. Many Saudi bases were already destroyed by Yemeni missiles. Combat strength of Saudi and Israeli troops is low. Iranian troops are deployed next to the occupied Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the Clash.  Hezbolla are Lebonese.  They have no claim to the Sheeba Farms.  Palistinians may have but not anyone from Lebanon.  Once the Syrians are brought into the fold, the Palastinains will finally recognize Israels right to exist.  And they just might get their nation.  Until then, don't expect Israel to agree to that since it means that their still going to have the threat of Terrorism in their face.  Hamas days are also numbered.  At some point, Egypt is going to have enough of it and go with Israel to just get rid of them.  Putting up with those criminally insane Hamas should not be tolerated.  Hell, even Palistinians can't get along with them hence the way the terroritories are laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the article because it shows how the Israeli regime fights Syria: With al-Qaeda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Iran and Syria finally learn to play well with others things will be completely different and a redrawing of the map might happen to a more sane map.  The Brits screwed the pooch in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be an axis reaching from Tehran to Beirut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, You have to look at the map.  Persia is made up of Iran, Iraq, Lebonon and Syria.  All the other are either Stans or Arabian.  Iraq is the melting point between Persia and Arabia.  The Brits blew it big time when they did the seperation.  It really should have been partitioned into 4 different countries for the 4 major religions.
> 
> The Arab Nations have all recognized Israel's right to exist.  The 4 Persian countries have not.  During the time that the Arabs controlled the Middle Easter, everyone pretty well lived in peace.  During the times that the Persians ruled it was war after war.  For over a thousand years there was peace in the area.  This includes Muslims and Jews.
> 
> Hamas and Hezbolla are both supported by 3 of the four Persian countries.  When Hamas and Huzbolla are taken care of then things will quiet back down.  Of course first Iran, Syria and Lebonon have to be handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel does not recognize Syria and forbids Israelis to travel to Syria.
> 
> One of the first things President Bashar Assad did on the international stage was to offer Israel recognition.
> 
> "I have made it clear that when there is a comprehensive and real peace that restores rights to each side in the region, the recognition (of Israel by Syria) and normal relations will become just as natural as those between two states and two people," said Assad.
> 
> "We want the Golan Heights, which is part of Syrian territory. Certain people want to know what are the conditions of the Syrian side. But Syria does not impose any condition. We have the rights (to it)," he said."
> Assad: Syria to Recognize Israel if Real Peace Offered
Click to expand...


If that terroritory was so important, they shouldn't have attacked them in 1967 and then again in 1973.  To the Victors.

They aren't getting it back.  Even if they did, Syria would still be up to it's tricks along with Iran.  Israel wants a nice buffer zone from Syria and will get it.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Yinon Plan wasn't really a plan.  It was one persons view on what was once a prediction that never came to be.  Since then, Egypt, Saudi Arabian and many other recognize Israel as a Country and right to exist.  The only two countries that don't are Iran and Syria and they are enemies of the entire Middle East and Northern Africa countries.  Iran's days are numbered.  The second they develop even ONE Nuclear Weapon, the war begins with Israel and Saudi bringing it to them.  Others may join in overthrowing Iran.  This may happen within the next 5 years unless Iran cleans it's act up.  Syria only exist because the Russians demand it.  Even Russia is finding it very draining on their meager resources.  Sooner or later, Syria will fall as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is just this happening in Syria and Iraq?
> Iran today is a strong military power. They don´t fear Saudi Arabia and Israel who get ass-kicked by Houthis respectively Hezbollah. Many Saudi bases were already destroyed by Yemeni missiles. Combat strength of Saudi and Israeli troops is low. Iranian troops are deployed next to the occupied Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the Clash.  Hezbolla are Lebonese.  They have no claim to the Sheeba Farms.  Palistinians may have but not anyone from Lebanon.  Once the Syrians are brought into the fold, the Palastinains will finally recognize Israels right to exist.  And they just might get their nation.  Until then, don't expect Israel to agree to that since it means that their still going to have the threat of Terrorism in their face.  Hamas days are also numbered.  At some point, Egypt is going to have enough of it and go with Israel to just get rid of them.  Putting up with those criminally insane Hamas should not be tolerated.  Hell, even Palistinians can't get along with them hence the way the terroritories are laid out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the article because it shows how the Israeli regime fights Syria: With al-Qaeda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Iran and Syria finally learn to play well with others things will be completely different and a redrawing of the map might happen to a more sane map.  The Brits screwed the pooch in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be an axis reaching from Tehran to Beirut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, You have to look at the map.  Persia is made up of Iran, Iraq, Lebonon and Syria.  All the other are either Stans or Arabian.  Iraq is the melting point between Persia and Arabia.  The Brits blew it big time when they did the seperation.  It really should have been partitioned into 4 different countries for the 4 major religions.
> 
> The Arab Nations have all recognized Israel's right to exist.  The 4 Persian countries have not.  During the time that the Arabs controlled the Middle Easter, everyone pretty well lived in peace.  During the times that the Persians ruled it was war after war.  For over a thousand years there was peace in the area.  This includes Muslims and Jews.
> 
> Hamas and Hezbolla are both supported by 3 of the four Persian countries.  When Hamas and Huzbolla are taken care of then things will quiet back down.  Of course first Iran, Syria and Lebonon have to be handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel does not recognize Syria and forbids Israelis to travel to Syria.
> 
> One of the first things President Bashar Assad did on the international stage was to offer Israel recognition.
> 
> "I have made it clear that when there is a comprehensive and real peace that restores rights to each side in the region, the recognition (of Israel by Syria) and normal relations will become just as natural as those between two states and two people," said Assad.
> 
> "We want the Golan Heights, which is part of Syrian territory. Certain people want to know what are the conditions of the Syrian side. But Syria does not impose any condition. We have the rights (to it)," he said."
> Assad: Syria to Recognize Israel if Real Peace Offered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that terroritory was so important, they shouldn't have attacked them in 1967 and then again in 1973.  To the Victors.
> 
> They aren't getting it back.  Even if they did, Syria would still be up to it's tricks along with Iran.  Israel wants a nice buffer zone from Syria and will get it.
Click to expand...

Brainwashed Americans serve others´ interests.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Yinon Plan - Wikipedia
> Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms


I'm talking about your links to your "sources" (lol) that an F-35 was shot down. 

You're a sucker who believes in conspiracy theories and who's burden of proof is simply whether it suits your worldview, we get it.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yinon Plan - Wikipedia
> Hezbollah & Israel clash over Israeli occupied Sheeba Farms
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your links to your "sources" (lol) that an F-35 was shot down.
> 
> You're a sucker who believes in conspiracy theories and who's burden of proof is simply whether it suits your worldview, we get it.
Click to expand...

Again, this claim has not been made, clown.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Again, this claim has not been made, clown.


It's quite telling that you purposely miss the point to avoid confronting the fact that you rely on conspiracy websites for "news" and swallow anything put before that agrees with your biased world view. 

You're like the forum's version of the National Enquirer, the dumbass who fell for the fake Iran stealth fighter is back with more "information" again lol


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this claim has not been made, clown.
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite telling that you purposely miss the point to avoid confronting the fact that you rely on conspiracy websites for "news" and swallow anything put before that agrees with your biased world view.
> 
> You're like the forum's version of the National Enquirer, the dumbass who fell for the fake Iran stealth fighter is back with more "information" again lol
Click to expand...

Lie. The Syrian army are not conspiracy theorists and I do not rely on conspiracy sites. I especially noted that the army site is not neutral. Why is an Israeli army source legit but a Syrian army source a conspiracy site?


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Lie. The Syrian army are not conspiracy theorists and I do not rely on conspiracy sites


Oh I know, who would imagine a journalism source from the military itself would have any bias or motivation to life? Oh yea, anyone would but you because you're braindead.

I'm quite sure you would have touted how the Iranians are good sources when you fell hook line and sinker for their fake stealth plane or photoshopped rocket launches.



Bleipriester said:


> Why is an Israeli army source legit but a Syrian army source a conspiracy site?


I don't trust anything from any "journalist" affiliated with a military organization.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie. The Syrian army are not conspiracy theorists and I do not rely on conspiracy sites
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know, who would imagine a journalism source from the military itself would have any bias or motivation to life? Oh yea, anyone would but you because you're braindead.
> 
> I'm quite sure you would have touted how the Iranians are good sources when you fell hook line and sinker for their fake stealth plane or photoshopped rocket launches.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is an Israeli army source legit but a Syrian army source a conspiracy site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't trust anything from any "journalist" affiliated with a military organization.
Click to expand...

You only believe what you like. Everything else is fake news.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> You only believe what you like. Everything else is fake news.


Hah that's great, you're the one getting their information from a "journalist" affiliated with the Syrian military, who (SURPRISE) has the wonderful news about how great they are and how superior they perform compared to the evil Zionists.

Tell us more about Iran's stealth plane, you poor gullible fool.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only believe what you like. Everything else is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's great, you're the one getting their information from a "journalist" affiliated with the Syrian military, who (SURPRISE) has the wonderful news about how great they are and how superior they perform compared to the evil Zionists.
> 
> Tell us more about Iran's stealth plane, you poor gullible fool.
Click to expand...


Then he can tell us about the Syrian Government gassing it's own people.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only believe what you like. Everything else is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's great, you're the one getting their information from a "journalist" affiliated with the Syrian military, who (SURPRISE) has the wonderful news about how great they are and how superior they perform compared to the evil Zionists.
> 
> Tell us more about Iran's stealth plane, you poor gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then he can tell us about the Syrian Government gassing it's own people.
Click to expand...

You now have evidence for your claim?


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> You now have evidence for your claim?


Wow, when did the making the F-35 Syrian missile claims suddenly become interested in any evidence being required to start spouting things as fact here?


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You now have evidence for your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, when did the making the F-35 Syrian missile claims suddenly become interested in any evidence being required to start spouting things as fact here?
Click to expand...

You don´t need evidence that it was a bird strike? For example a photo of the F-35 that Israel does not release?


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> You don´t need evidence that it was a bird strike? For example a photo of the F-35 that Israel does not release?


What does IAF releasing photos have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect IAF (or any Air Force) to take pictures of their aircraft to satisfy the demands of a bunch of loony online conspiracy theorists. Who has asked them to release photos, you?


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don´t need evidence that it was a bird strike? For example a photo of the F-35 that Israel does not release?
> 
> 
> 
> What does IAF releasing photos have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect IAF (or any Air Force) to take pictures of their aircraft to satisfy the demands of a bunch of loony online conspiracy theorists. Who has asked them to release photos, you?
Click to expand...

Your bullshit does not lead to the Israeli version being more believable. But, heck, we both know they could claim the earth is a disk and you´d claim it as well.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only believe what you like. Everything else is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's great, you're the one getting their information from a "journalist" affiliated with the Syrian military, who (SURPRISE) has the wonderful news about how great they are and how superior they perform compared to the evil Zionists.
> 
> Tell us more about Iran's stealth plane, you poor gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then he can tell us about the Syrian Government gassing it's own people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You now have evidence for your claim?
Click to expand...


Geez, this has been covered and proven over and over.  You are just looking stupid at this point.  How much is Putin paying you or is it Syria.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only believe what you like. Everything else is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's great, you're the one getting their information from a "journalist" affiliated with the Syrian military, who (SURPRISE) has the wonderful news about how great they are and how superior they perform compared to the evil Zionists.
> 
> Tell us more about Iran's stealth plane, you poor gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then he can tell us about the Syrian Government gassing it's own people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You now have evidence for your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geez, this has been covered and proven over and over.  You are just looking stupid at this point.  How much is Putin paying you or is it Syria.
Click to expand...

I didn´t ask for claims its proven but for actual evidence and that is what you don´t have have because the attack was a false flag. All you got is stupid propaganda. Looks like I am not talking to a user but some representative of the foreign office.







Is that you, Kirby?




"Assad kills his own people! Allah akbar!"


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Your bullshit does not lead to the Israeli version being more believable. But, heck, we both know they could claim the earth is a disk and you´d claim it as well.


Israeli version of what? A bird strike? You're the one filling in gaps that don't exist with conspiracy theories with zero evidence other than heresay visa Syrian Army sources. 

Again, what is your evidence besides complaining that the IAF hasn't taken photos of the plane to satisfy morons like you?


----------



## DrainBamage

> Looks like I am not talking to a user but some representative of the foreign office.


Well here we have it folks, Mr. "I'm not into conspiracy theories" has decided one of the other regular posters on this forum must be working for a government. They have nothing better to do than pay Daryl Hunt to post on this forum.

Please tattoo "gullible dumbass" on your forehead you pathetic low information monosynaptic moron.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit does not lead to the Israeli version being more believable. But, heck, we both know they could claim the earth is a disk and you´d claim it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli version of what? A bird strike? You're the one filling in gaps that don't exist with conspiracy theories with zero evidence other than heresay visa Syrian Army sources.
> 
> Again, what is your evidence besides complaining that the IAF hasn't taken photos of the plane to satisfy morons like you?
Click to expand...

Do not distract.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Do not distract.


Translation = you lack the intelligence to formulate a response, as usual. Here are some useful links for you:

Conspiracy theories forum: Conspiracy Theories
Mental health: Health and Lifestyle

Try to get some help, little man.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not distract.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation = you lack the intelligence to formulate a response, as usual. Here are some useful links for you:
> 
> Conspiracy theories forum: Conspiracy Theories
> Mental health: Health and Lifestyle
> 
> Try to get some help, little man.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bullshitter, but everyone can see who of us is reliable and who uses source-bashing and the most ridiculous "arguments".


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Sorry, bullshitter, but everyone can see who of us is reliable and who uses source-bashing and the most ridiculous "arguments".


Nope, you know quite well you're the village idiot in this forum. Tell us some more conspiracy theories, ooh say again about the Iranian stealth plane.

lol


----------



## Manonthestreet

Turning Point: The F-35 May Not Deliver | RealClearDefense


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bullshitter, but everyone can see who of us is reliable and who uses source-bashing and the most ridiculous "arguments".
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you know quite well you're the village idiot in this forum. Tell us some more conspiracy theories, ooh say again about the Iranian stealth plane.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

It´s still in development.

IAIO Qaher-313 - Wikipedia


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> It´s still in development.
> 
> IAIO Qaher-313 - Wikipedia


Hah hah this is great, earlier you were posting videos of an obvious RC model plane flying around bragging on the glory of Iranian technology.

Now you've got a wiki page about this plane that states _*"Independent experts have expressed significant doubts about the viability of the aircraft"*_ can you make a bigger fool of yourself? From your link, about the plane you were so proud of:

A photo of the cockpit shows a simple glass cockpit design using civilian avionics from Dynon Avionics and Garmin which are normally found on much less sophisticated general aviation aircraft. The markings on the backup airspeed indicator in this photo seem unrealistic, suggesting a stall speed in landing configuration of merely 70 knots and a never exceed speed of about 260 knots; values more likely to be found on a small turbopropaircraft.[26] Video footage showing the plane airborne could have been a radio-controlled model aircraft. Poor-quality footage posted on the internet provided no sense of scale for the platform being flown, and also failed to show its take-off or landing. Its stealth claims have also been called into question, having no visible weapons carrying capability, either internally or externally.[27][28] Iran has stated that the videos are of small radio controlled jet and propeller models and not the full size airplane. Furthermore, the animation provided by the designers shows two internal weapons bay under the wings.[9]

Never set the retard dial to 11, dude.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only believe what you like. Everything else is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's great, you're the one getting their information from a "journalist" affiliated with the Syrian military, who (SURPRISE) has the wonderful news about how great they are and how superior they perform compared to the evil Zionists.
> 
> Tell us more about Iran's stealth plane, you poor gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then he can tell us about the Syrian Government gassing it's own people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You now have evidence for your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geez, this has been covered and proven over and over.  You are just looking stupid at this point.  How much is Putin paying you or is it Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn´t ask for claims its proven but for actual evidence and that is what you don´t have have because the attack was a false flag. All you got is stupid propaganda. Looks like I am not talking to a user but some representative of the foreign office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you, Kirby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Assad kills his own people! Allah akbar!"
Click to expand...


You don't accept the UN.  You don't accept Amnesty International.   I can't believe that anyone can be a stupid as you seem to be unless they are paid to be that stupid.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It´s still in development.
> 
> IAIO Qaher-313 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Hah hah this is great, earlier you were posting videos of an obvious RC model plane flying around bragging on the glory of Iranian technology.
> 
> Now you've got a wiki page about this plane that states _*"Independent experts have expressed significant doubts about the viability of the aircraft"*_ can you make a bigger fool of yourself? From your link, about the plane you were so proud of:
> 
> A photo of the cockpit shows a simple glass cockpit design using civilian avionics from Dynon Avionics and Garmin which are normally found on much less sophisticated general aviation aircraft. The markings on the backup airspeed indicator in this photo seem unrealistic, suggesting a stall speed in landing configuration of merely 70 knots and a never exceed speed of about 260 knots; values more likely to be found on a small turbopropaircraft.[26] Video footage showing the plane airborne could have been a radio-controlled model aircraft. Poor-quality footage posted on the internet provided no sense of scale for the platform being flown, and also failed to show its take-off or landing. Its stealth claims have also been called into question, having no visible weapons carrying capability, either internally or externally.[27][28] Iran has stated that the videos are of small radio controlled jet and propeller models and not the full size airplane. Furthermore, the animation provided by the designers shows two internal weapons bay under the wings.[9]
> 
> Never set the retard dial to 11, dude.
Click to expand...

So you admit it is being developed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit does not lead to the Israeli version being more believable. But, heck, we both know they could claim the earth is a disk and you´d claim it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli version of what? A bird strike? You're the one filling in gaps that don't exist with conspiracy theories with zero evidence other than heresay visa Syrian Army sources.
> 
> Again, what is your evidence besides complaining that the IAF hasn't taken photos of the plane to satisfy morons like you?
Click to expand...


I just read a report put out by the Russians.  No AC were hit.  But the Israelis started to fire stand offs and destroyed a number of various Radar Sites in that area.  The Radar Systems there have no way to prevent standoff weapons either fired from the surface or from Aircraft.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Looks like I am not talking to a user but some representative of the foreign office.
> 
> 
> 
> Well here we have it folks, Mr. "I'm not into conspiracy theories" has decided one of the other regular posters on this forum must be working for a government. They have nothing better to do than pay Daryl Hunt to post on this forum.
> 
> Please tattoo "gullible dumbass" on your forehead you pathetic low information monosynaptic moron.
Click to expand...


They are suppose to pay me?  Why wasn't I notified?  Do they have the address incorrect and there is just a mixup in the payment?


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's great, you're the one getting their information from a "journalist" affiliated with the Syrian military, who (SURPRISE) has the wonderful news about how great they are and how superior they perform compared to the evil Zionists.
> 
> Tell us more about Iran's stealth plane, you poor gullible fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he can tell us about the Syrian Government gassing it's own people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You now have evidence for your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geez, this has been covered and proven over and over.  You are just looking stupid at this point.  How much is Putin paying you or is it Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn´t ask for claims its proven but for actual evidence and that is what you don´t have have because the attack was a false flag. All you got is stupid propaganda. Looks like I am not talking to a user but some representative of the foreign office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you, Kirby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Assad kills his own people! Allah akbar!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't accept the UN.  You don't accept Amnesty International.   I can't believe that anyone can be a stupid as you seem to be unless they are paid to be that stupid.
Click to expand...

Neither UN nor AI where on the ground, they got their "evidence" directly from al-Qaeda. Discussed that already. You just make it up again and again and again.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit does not lead to the Israeli version being more believable. But, heck, we both know they could claim the earth is a disk and you´d claim it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli version of what? A bird strike? You're the one filling in gaps that don't exist with conspiracy theories with zero evidence other than heresay visa Syrian Army sources.
> 
> Again, what is your evidence besides complaining that the IAF hasn't taken photos of the plane to satisfy morons like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read a report put out by the Russians.  No AC were hit.  But the Israelis started to fire stand offs and destroyed a number of various Radar Sites in that area.  The Radar Systems there have no way to prevent standoff weapons either fired from the surface or from Aircraft.
Click to expand...

A radar system was damaged. But not by the F-35.

"In retaliation, the IAF bomb the SA-5 battery, destroying its fire control radar."
Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit does not lead to the Israeli version being more believable. But, heck, we both know they could claim the earth is a disk and you´d claim it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli version of what? A bird strike? You're the one filling in gaps that don't exist with conspiracy theories with zero evidence other than heresay visa Syrian Army sources.
> 
> Again, what is your evidence besides complaining that the IAF hasn't taken photos of the plane to satisfy morons like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read a report put out by the Russians.  No AC were hit.  But the Israelis started to fire stand offs and destroyed a number of various Radar Sites in that area.  The Radar Systems there have no way to prevent standoff weapons either fired from the surface or from Aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A radar system was damaged. But not by the F-35.
> 
> "In retaliation, the IAF bomb the SA-5 battery, destroying its fire control radar."
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
Click to expand...


Chances are, there were no F-35s even remotely in that area.  It was probably either a F-16 or a F-15E.  Both are used for recon and both are armed to the teeth.  You just contridicted your own posts.  The SA-5 fired on the Israeli overflight and missed.  The Recon Bird hit the radar antennae.  This coincides with both the Israeli and the Russian reports.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit does not lead to the Israeli version being more believable. But, heck, we both know they could claim the earth is a disk and you´d claim it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli version of what? A bird strike? You're the one filling in gaps that don't exist with conspiracy theories with zero evidence other than heresay visa Syrian Army sources.
> 
> Again, what is your evidence besides complaining that the IAF hasn't taken photos of the plane to satisfy morons like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read a report put out by the Russians.  No AC were hit.  But the Israelis started to fire stand offs and destroyed a number of various Radar Sites in that area.  The Radar Systems there have no way to prevent standoff weapons either fired from the surface or from Aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A radar system was damaged. But not by the F-35.
> 
> "In retaliation, the IAF bomb the SA-5 battery, destroying its fire control radar."
> Ynetnews News - IDF attacks Syrian army post in retaliation for errant rocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chances are, there were no F-35s even remotely in that area.  It was probably either a F-16 or a F-15E.  Both are used for recon and both are armed to the teeth.  You just contridicted your own posts.  The SA-5 fired on the Israeli overflight and missed.  The Recon Bird hit the radar antennae.  This coincides with both the Israeli and the Russian reports.
Click to expand...

I didn´t. I just quoted the source. That an F-35 was around is not doubted by any side, by the way, only the time differs.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> So you admit it is being developed.


Yep, I wouldn't doubt Iran has some program to create their own fighter jet.

It's laughable though, they lack the expertise and if there was any real progress they wouldn't have needed to make a fake fiberglass version, a photoshopped image of it flying, and a blurry video of a RC model flying about.

Granted, all that BS does fool the low information people like you. Boy were you excited, hah.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> They are suppose to pay me?  Why wasn't I notified?  Do they have the address incorrect and there is just a mixup in the payment?


Standard argument from the simpleton types like BP, his pea-brain can't fathom the worldview isn't how he imagined so anyone providing information counter must be a paid shill.

It's the universal sign of doesn't know shit.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> I didn´t. I just quoted the source. That an F-35 was around is not doubted by any side, by the way, only the time differs.


You're lying again. IAF has never said an F-35 was around, and the other side has no evidence of what type of aircraft was in the air.

Every single post by you is either something you made up or an utterly stupid opinion.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit it is being developed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I wouldn't doubt Iran has some program to create their own fighter jet.
> 
> It's laughable though, they lack the expertise and if there was any real progress they wouldn't have needed to make a fake fiberglass version, a photoshopped image of it flying, and a blurry video of a RC model flying about.
> 
> Granted, all that BS does fool the low information people like you. Boy were you excited, hah.
Click to expand...


Iranian fighter jets in service:

HESA Azarakhsh (1997):





HESA Saeqeh (2007):






Israeli fighter jets in service:

-


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn´t. I just quoted the source. That an F-35 was around is not doubted by any side, by the way, only the time differs.
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying again. IAF has never said an F-35 was around, and the other side has no evidence of what type of aircraft was in the air.
> 
> Every single post by you is either something you made up or an utterly stupid opinion.
Click to expand...

You troll keep on lying and this is why you cannot come up with sources. Pesky liar.

"An Israeli Air Force F-35I “Adir” (Mighty) was involved in a bird strike incident during a training sortie two weeks ago, the Israeli Defense Forces said on Oct. 16. The pilot managed to land the plane safely back at Nevatim Air Force Base in the Negev Desert and no casualties were reported.

The news of the birdstrike incident was released on the very same day the Israeli targeted a Syrian SAM battery that had attacked IDF aircraft during a routine flight over Lebanon fueling speculations that the F-35 was not grounded by a birdstrike but because it was hit by the Syrian air defenses."
Syria claims it shot down an Israeli combat plane; Israel denies: dissecting the latest IAF strike on Damascus


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Iranian fighter jets in service:


So to dispute my post about Iran lacking the capabilities to successfully develop their own jet, you post a picture of their knockoff F-5, something the US designed 50 years go.

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> "An Israeli Air Force F-35I “Adir” (Mighty) was involved in a bird strike incident during a training sortie two weeks ago, the Israeli Defense Forces said on Oct. 16. The pilot managed to land the plane safely back at Nevatim Air Force Base in the Negev Desert and no casualties were reported.


And you're caught yet again. Nowhere here does IAF say an F-35 "was around" as you claim. They said one was doing a training sortie, they are based at Nevatim well over a hundred miles away. That's how dipshits like you get caught in conspiracy theories... you start adding in facts that you made up and the next person who hears it believes it's true.

IAF has no said an F-35 was around, period. You're a compulsive liar.


----------



## DrainBamage

Iran's picture released of stealth fighter flying gloriously:







It just happens to be at exact same angle as the fiberglass one they had sitting on the ground, right down to the colored lights reflecting on the tail:






This is kind of shit that PreBleister believes, because he lacks critical thinking skills.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit it is being developed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I wouldn't doubt Iran has some program to create their own fighter jet.
> 
> It's laughable though, they lack the expertise and if there was any real progress they wouldn't have needed to make a fake fiberglass version, a photoshopped image of it flying, and a blurry video of a RC model flying about.
> 
> Granted, all that BS does fool the low information people like you. Boy were you excited, hah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iranian fighter jets in service:
> 
> HESA Azarakhsh (1997):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HESA Saeqeh (2007):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli fighter jets in service:
> 
> -
Click to expand...


The first one is a leftover F-5 from the 70s.  The other is a modified F-5 left over from the 70s.  While both will be very good at visual range, they probably won't get much of a chance.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Iran's picture released of stealth fighter flying gloriously:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just happens to be at exact same angle as the fiberglass one they had sitting on the ground, right down to the colored lights reflecting on the tail:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of shit that PreBleister believes, because he lacks critical thinking skills.


Fan picture, troll.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit it is being developed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I wouldn't doubt Iran has some program to create their own fighter jet.
> 
> It's laughable though, they lack the expertise and if there was any real progress they wouldn't have needed to make a fake fiberglass version, a photoshopped image of it flying, and a blurry video of a RC model flying about.
> 
> Granted, all that BS does fool the low information people like you. Boy were you excited, hah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iranian fighter jets in service:
> 
> HESA Azarakhsh (1997):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HESA Saeqeh (2007):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli fighter jets in service:
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first one is a leftover F-5 from the 70s.  The other is a modified F-5 left over from the 70s.  While both will be very good at visual range, they probably won't get much of a chance.
Click to expand...

Iran began how the US began. These are both Iranian made planes, developed from the F-5. But fighters are not Iran´s hobbyhorse but air defense. Iran´s claims may be exaggerated but western "experts", who have also not more then the pictures and footage released by Iran, always claim the opposite.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Fan picture, troll.


You're too dumb to even lie properly, it clearly has Iranian news logo on the bottom left of the picture.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> These are both Iranian made planes, developed from the F-5.


Congrats to Iran, their amazing fighter industry has managed to produce:

1. A knockoff of a really old American fighter that was designed 50 years ago
2. A fake stealth plane that they demo with a fiberglass knockoff, a blurry video of an RC plane, and a photoshop

Amazing, the world quakes at their technical prowess.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fan picture, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to even lie properly, it clearly has Iranian news logo on the bottom left of the picture.
Click to expand...







However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?


This is what is funny about silly conspiracy theories, the idiots who believe them draw further conclusions based on incorrect assumptions. It leads to a neverending cycle of stupidity, as demonstrated by PlieBruiser.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?
> 
> 
> 
> This is what is funny about silly conspiracy theories, the idiots who believe them draw further conclusions based on incorrect assumptions. It leads to a neverending cycle of stupidity, as demonstrated by PlieBruiser.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true. Am confronted with that shit all day.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fan picture, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to even lie properly, it clearly has Iranian news logo on the bottom left of the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?
Click to expand...


One huge problem standing in your way.  The Incident involved either a F-15 or F-16.  The F-35 was at least 100 miles away doing check flights.  That has already been confirmed.  Or don't you believe in the real S-200/300/400 radar operators, the Russians.  They shot at either a F-16 or 15 and lost a radar array over it with no damage or hits on the Israeli Birds.  

You must be paid to be this stupid.  No one that can operate a keyboard can be this dumb.  One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.

Hate to break it to you, Comrade, the news is out on all you Russian Trolls.  Go back to trying to nail Hillary about something.  At least then some other weak minded person might believe it.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fan picture, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to even lie properly, it clearly has Iranian news logo on the bottom left of the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One huge problem standing in your way.  The Incident involved either a F-15 or F-16.  The F-35 was at least 100 miles away doing check flights.  That has already been confirmed.  Or don't you believe in the real S-200/300/400 radar operators, the Russians.  They shot at either a F-16 or 15 and lost a radar array over it with no damage or hits on the Israeli Birds.
> 
> You must be paid to be this stupid.  No one that can operate a keyboard can be this dumb.  One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, Comrade, the news is out on all you Russian Trolls.  Go back to trying to nail Hillary about something.  At least then some other weak minded person might believe it.
Click to expand...

Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?


That's pretty funny, a few posts ago you were citing Israeli sources about the bird strike then manufacturing additional information that Israel said an F-35 was in the area.

Now after being called on it and exposed as a liar you're suddenly disregarding those same reports. It's consistent with you, every post is either a lie or being caught in a lie and trying to recover.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.


He's incredibly stupid, can't even organize effective lies since he contradicts himself.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty funny, a few posts ago you were citing Israeli sources about the bird strike then manufacturing additional information that Israel said an F-35 was in the area.
> 
> Now after being called on it and exposed as a liar you're suddenly disregarding those same reports. It's consistent with you, every post is either a lie or being caught in a lie and trying to recover.
Click to expand...

Enough, fucking freak. You won´t distort my posts in order to be right. You have a serious brain damage, take your fucking teeth out of my calf, rabid tike.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fan picture, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to even lie properly, it clearly has Iranian news logo on the bottom left of the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One huge problem standing in your way.  The Incident involved either a F-15 or F-16.  The F-35 was at least 100 miles away doing check flights.  That has already been confirmed.  Or don't you believe in the real S-200/300/400 radar operators, the Russians.  They shot at either a F-16 or 15 and lost a radar array over it with no damage or hits on the Israeli Birds.
> 
> You must be paid to be this stupid.  No one that can operate a keyboard can be this dumb.  One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, Comrade, the news is out on all you Russian Trolls.  Go back to trying to nail Hillary about something.  At least then some other weak minded person might believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?
Click to expand...


You confirmed it from one your own cites.  Danged, they must be paying you some big bucks to pretend to be this stupid.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fan picture, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to even lie properly, it clearly has Iranian news logo on the bottom left of the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One huge problem standing in your way.  The Incident involved either a F-15 or F-16.  The F-35 was at least 100 miles away doing check flights.  That has already been confirmed.  Or don't you believe in the real S-200/300/400 radar operators, the Russians.  They shot at either a F-16 or 15 and lost a radar array over it with no damage or hits on the Israeli Birds.
> 
> You must be paid to be this stupid.  No one that can operate a keyboard can be this dumb.  One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, Comrade, the news is out on all you Russian Trolls.  Go back to trying to nail Hillary about something.  At least then some other weak minded person might believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confirmed it from one your own cites.  Danged, they must be paying you some big bucks to pretend to be this stupid.
Click to expand...

No, I didn´t. I said there was an Israeli missile strike later. Since it is very important to you that the F-35 was not shot although everything indicates it was I advice you to make a thread "How it was a bird strike".


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Enough, fucking freak. You won´t distort my posts in order to be right. You have a serious brain damage, take your fucking teeth out of my calf, rabid tike.


You've done the "teeth calf" routine before, we're quite used to it as a response when you're caught lying and have nothing else.

Aren't you at least a bit embarrassed at being made such a fool of? You clearly said Israel had confirmed a plane in the area, but when caught in that lie you're doing your usual dog leg dumbshit post. You have no self-respect dude, humiliated over and over. Did you Mom drink a lot of alcohol while pregnant with you? What happened?


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> No, I didn´t. I said there was an Israeli missile strike later. Since it is very important to you that the F-35 was not shot although everything indicates it was I advice you to make a thread "How it was a bird strike".


So let's follow your logic, retard.

Israel has a big secret, that they were actually using a F-35 that wasn't supposed to be operational and it got hit, proving it is useless. So instead of doing the logical thing and just not saying anything, they decide to invite speculation by announcing a bird strike. What would that gain them if their aim was to hide this incident? Nothing. Then you get morons like you using as evidence the fact they aren't providing photos of their planes. How stupid can it get.

You don't think it through, so you look like an ass. Over, and over. Endless entertainment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're too dumb to even lie properly, it clearly has Iranian news logo on the bottom left of the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One huge problem standing in your way.  The Incident involved either a F-15 or F-16.  The F-35 was at least 100 miles away doing check flights.  That has already been confirmed.  Or don't you believe in the real S-200/300/400 radar operators, the Russians.  They shot at either a F-16 or 15 and lost a radar array over it with no damage or hits on the Israeli Birds.
> 
> You must be paid to be this stupid.  No one that can operate a keyboard can be this dumb.  One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, Comrade, the news is out on all you Russian Trolls.  Go back to trying to nail Hillary about something.  At least then some other weak minded person might believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confirmed it from one your own cites.  Danged, they must be paying you some big bucks to pretend to be this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn´t. I said there was an Israeli missile strike later. Since it is very important to you that the F-35 was not shot although everything indicates it was I advice you to make a thread "How it was a bird strike".
Click to expand...


You claimed it was a S5 missile from a S200 site that hit the F-35.  Then the Russians released that it was a fire and a miss on a Recon Bird and the Recon Bird took out the array  That Recon Bird was either a F-16 (most probable) or a F-15.  The Russians are the ones that actually fired the missile since they are controlling all of the radar sites remotely.  Do you mean (from your own cite) that the Russians lied?  Whether there was a bird strike or not, there were NO F-35s within at least a hundred miles.  You really need to do a checklist to keep track of all your lying.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Whether there was a bird strike or not, there were NO F-35s within at least a hundred miles.  You really need to do a checklist to keep track of all your lying.


This is the funniest thing, PlueBluster announcing that both sides confirmed an F-35 was in the area. WTF?

One side said an F-35 that was training at an air base 130 miles away hit a bird.
The other has no idea what planes are up there and cant confirm anything.

Yet from this PlueBluster invents new angles to the story, just lying through his teeth because he is a compulsive liar. Hilarious and sad at the same time.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not half as funny as the F-35 "Stealth" rock: 21 years of development and a S-200 pounds it away. When will it be ready? Before the F-313?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One huge problem standing in your way.  The Incident involved either a F-15 or F-16.  The F-35 was at least 100 miles away doing check flights.  That has already been confirmed.  Or don't you believe in the real S-200/300/400 radar operators, the Russians.  They shot at either a F-16 or 15 and lost a radar array over it with no damage or hits on the Israeli Birds.
> 
> You must be paid to be this stupid.  No one that can operate a keyboard can be this dumb.  One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, Comrade, the news is out on all you Russian Trolls.  Go back to trying to nail Hillary about something.  At least then some other weak minded person might believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confirmed it from one your own cites.  Danged, they must be paying you some big bucks to pretend to be this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn´t. I said there was an Israeli missile strike later. Since it is very important to you that the F-35 was not shot although everything indicates it was I advice you to make a thread "How it was a bird strike".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed it was a S5 missile from a S200 site that hit the F-35.  Then the Russians released that it was a fire and a miss on a Recon Bird and the Recon Bird took out the array  That Recon Bird was either a F-16 (most probable) or a F-15.  The Russians are the ones that actually fired the missile since they are controlling all of the radar sites remotely.  Do you mean (from your own cite) that the Russians lied?  Whether there was a bird strike or not, there were NO F-35s within at least a hundred miles.  You really need to do a checklist to keep track of all your lying.
Click to expand...

No I didn´t the Russians didn´t.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> One huge problem standing in your way.  The Incident involved either a F-15 or F-16.  The F-35 was at least 100 miles away doing check flights.  That has already been confirmed.  Or don't you believe in the real S-200/300/400 radar operators, the Russians.  They shot at either a F-16 or 15 and lost a radar array over it with no damage or hits on the Israeli Birds.
> 
> You must be paid to be this stupid.  No one that can operate a keyboard can be this dumb.  One would have to be paid to appear to be this dumb.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, Comrade, the news is out on all you Russian Trolls.  Go back to trying to nail Hillary about something.  At least then some other weak minded person might believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Who confirmed it? Washington Bob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confirmed it from one your own cites.  Danged, they must be paying you some big bucks to pretend to be this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn´t. I said there was an Israeli missile strike later. Since it is very important to you that the F-35 was not shot although everything indicates it was I advice you to make a thread "How it was a bird strike".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed it was a S5 missile from a S200 site that hit the F-35.  Then the Russians released that it was a fire and a miss on a Recon Bird and the Recon Bird took out the array  That Recon Bird was either a F-16 (most probable) or a F-15.  The Russians are the ones that actually fired the missile since they are controlling all of the radar sites remotely.  Do you mean (from your own cite) that the Russians lied?  Whether there was a bird strike or not, there were NO F-35s within at least a hundred miles.  You really need to do a checklist to keep track of all your lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I didn´t the Russians didn´t.
Click to expand...


Now it's your turn.  Prove that a F-35 was hit buy a s-200 system.  I mean really prove it.  If you can't then it never happened.  Even the Russians said it was a "Armed Recon" Fighter that they fired on and missed.  And the Israelis responded by taking out their radar array.  The Russians didn't say what type of Fighter, only that it was a Recon.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> I mean really prove it.  If you can't then it never happened.


So? Because Israel is automatically right? Or because engaging Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace is a crime?





Daryl Hunt said:


> Even the Russians said it was a "Armed Recon" Fighter that they fired on and missed.  And the Israelis responded by taking out their radar array.  The Russians didn't say what type of Fighter, only that it was a Recon.


I don´t know what you are talking about. Syrian air defenses are operated by Syrians, by the way. I wonder what shit you will make up next.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really prove it.  If you can't then it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Because Israel is automatically right? Or because engaging Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace is a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the Russians said it was a "Armed Recon" Fighter that they fired on and missed.  And the Israelis responded by taking out their radar array.  The Russians didn't say what type of Fighter, only that it was a Recon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know what you are talking about. Syrian air defenses are operated by Syrians, by the way. I wonder what shit you will make up next.
Click to expand...


Syrias war overflowed into Israel.  Israel has been very vocal about the actions and they just responded like they promised.

Are you aware that the S200 is integrated into the Russians S300 and 400 in Syria?  That means that the control is in Russian hands.  The Syrians were screwing the pooch pretty bad with the S200 systems.  The approval to fire is from the Russians, not the Syrians.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really prove it.  If you can't then it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Because Israel is automatically right? Or because engaging Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace is a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the Russians said it was a "Armed Recon" Fighter that they fired on and missed.  And the Israelis responded by taking out their radar array.  The Russians didn't say what type of Fighter, only that it was a Recon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know what you are talking about. Syrian air defenses are operated by Syrians, by the way. I wonder what shit you will make up next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrias war overflowed into Israel.  Israel has been very vocal about the actions and they just responded like they promised.
> 
> Are you aware that the S200 is integrated into the Russians S300 and 400 in Syria?  That means that the control is in Russian hands.  The Syrians were screwing the pooch pretty bad with the S200 systems.  The approval to fire is from the Russians, not the Syrians.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Even if there an integration that doesn´t mean the S-200 systen cannot operate independently. It is the right of a nation to target illegally present warplanes, no approval required.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really prove it.  If you can't then it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Because Israel is automatically right? Or because engaging Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace is a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the Russians said it was a "Armed Recon" Fighter that they fired on and missed.  And the Israelis responded by taking out their radar array.  The Russians didn't say what type of Fighter, only that it was a Recon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know what you are talking about. Syrian air defenses are operated by Syrians, by the way. I wonder what shit you will make up next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrias war overflowed into Israel.  Israel has been very vocal about the actions and they just responded like they promised.
> 
> Are you aware that the S200 is integrated into the Russians S300 and 400 in Syria?  That means that the control is in Russian hands.  The Syrians were screwing the pooch pretty bad with the S200 systems.  The approval to fire is from the Russians, not the Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Even if there an integration that doesn´t mean the S-200 systen cannot operate independently. It is the right of a nation to target illegally present warplanes, no approval required.
Click to expand...


Like the Russians should trust the Syrian army?  They don't.  How many S-200 sites were overrun in the past?  How many millions has Russia spent on setting up those sites that were lost and the replacement sites?  This is why the Russians have taken control.  The Russians have promised S-300/400/500 to the syrians.  Right now, the only place you will find them is protecting Russian Bases in Syria.  The last thing they want is for their best system to be handed over to the US where it will be dissected.  

I can see it now.  You shoot at me and then cry when I shoot back.  Newsflash, that only works in the second grade.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really prove it.  If you can't then it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Because Israel is automatically right? Or because engaging Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace is a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the Russians said it was a "Armed Recon" Fighter that they fired on and missed.  And the Israelis responded by taking out their radar array.  The Russians didn't say what type of Fighter, only that it was a Recon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know what you are talking about. Syrian air defenses are operated by Syrians, by the way. I wonder what shit you will make up next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrias war overflowed into Israel.  Israel has been very vocal about the actions and they just responded like they promised.
> 
> Are you aware that the S200 is integrated into the Russians S300 and 400 in Syria?  That means that the control is in Russian hands.  The Syrians were screwing the pooch pretty bad with the S200 systems.  The approval to fire is from the Russians, not the Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Even if there an integration that doesn´t mean the S-200 systen cannot operate independently. It is the right of a nation to target illegally present warplanes, no approval required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the Russians should trust the Syrian army?  They don't.  How many S-200 sites were overrun in the past?  How many millions has Russia spent on setting up those sites that were lost and the replacement sites?  This is why the Russians have taken control.  The Russians have promised S-300/400/500 to the syrians.  Right now, the only place you will find them is protecting Russian Bases in Syria.  The last thing they want is for their best system to be handed over to the US where it will be dissected.
> 
> I can see it now.  You shoot at me and then cry when I shoot back.  Newsflash, that only works in the second grade.
Click to expand...

You shoot. Claim by claim without source. The Russians did not take control. They are enhancing the the Syrian military´s capabilities. During the war, "rebels" particularly targeted air defense stuff but know the air defense is recovering.
The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really prove it.  If you can't then it never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Because Israel is automatically right? Or because engaging Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace is a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the Russians said it was a "Armed Recon" Fighter that they fired on and missed.  And the Israelis responded by taking out their radar array.  The Russians didn't say what type of Fighter, only that it was a Recon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know what you are talking about. Syrian air defenses are operated by Syrians, by the way. I wonder what shit you will make up next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrias war overflowed into Israel.  Israel has been very vocal about the actions and they just responded like they promised.
> 
> Are you aware that the S200 is integrated into the Russians S300 and 400 in Syria?  That means that the control is in Russian hands.  The Syrians were screwing the pooch pretty bad with the S200 systems.  The approval to fire is from the Russians, not the Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Even if there an integration that doesn´t mean the S-200 systen cannot operate independently. It is the right of a nation to target illegally present warplanes, no approval required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the Russians should trust the Syrian army?  They don't.  How many S-200 sites were overrun in the past?  How many millions has Russia spent on setting up those sites that were lost and the replacement sites?  This is why the Russians have taken control.  The Russians have promised S-300/400/500 to the syrians.  Right now, the only place you will find them is protecting Russian Bases in Syria.  The last thing they want is for their best system to be handed over to the US where it will be dissected.
> 
> I can see it now.  You shoot at me and then cry when I shoot back.  Newsflash, that only works in the second grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You shoot. Claim by claim without source. The Russians did not take control. They are enhancing the the Syrian military´s capabilities. During the war, "rebels" particularly targeted air defense stuff but know the air defense is recovering.
> The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.
Click to expand...


If you say a lie enough times does it become true?  

Now for another point.  The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate.  That's about 35 miles.  You may know they are there but you can nothing about it.  This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have.  And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large.  Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it.  Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Because Israel is automatically right? Or because engaging Israeli aircraft violating Syrian airspace is a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t know what you are talking about. Syrian air defenses are operated by Syrians, by the way. I wonder what shit you will make up next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syrias war overflowed into Israel.  Israel has been very vocal about the actions and they just responded like they promised.
> 
> Are you aware that the S200 is integrated into the Russians S300 and 400 in Syria?  That means that the control is in Russian hands.  The Syrians were screwing the pooch pretty bad with the S200 systems.  The approval to fire is from the Russians, not the Syrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Even if there an integration that doesn´t mean the S-200 systen cannot operate independently. It is the right of a nation to target illegally present warplanes, no approval required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the Russians should trust the Syrian army?  They don't.  How many S-200 sites were overrun in the past?  How many millions has Russia spent on setting up those sites that were lost and the replacement sites?  This is why the Russians have taken control.  The Russians have promised S-300/400/500 to the syrians.  Right now, the only place you will find them is protecting Russian Bases in Syria.  The last thing they want is for their best system to be handed over to the US where it will be dissected.
> 
> I can see it now.  You shoot at me and then cry when I shoot back.  Newsflash, that only works in the second grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You shoot. Claim by claim without source. The Russians did not take control. They are enhancing the the Syrian military´s capabilities. During the war, "rebels" particularly targeted air defense stuff but know the air defense is recovering.
> The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say a lie enough times does it become true?
> 
> Now for another point.  The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate.  That's about 35 miles.  You may know they are there but you can nothing about it.  This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have.  And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large.  Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it.  Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.
Click to expand...

Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie  - without a source, of course.

Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.

S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia

Why are you constantly lying?


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.


An F-35 hit a bird 100 miles away, therefore a missile hit an F-35 over Syria.

You love conspiracy theories eh, just let your imagination run wild regardless of complete lack of proof or facts. I bet Elvis was flying that F-35.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> I bet Elvis was flying that F-35.


Maybe, it was you.


----------



## DrainBamage

It wouldn't surprise me if you believed that. Neither the Syrians nor the Russians nor the Israelis claims an F-35 was shot down, it was just wild speculation by some writer that you are now stating as fact. That is how conspiracy nuts like you work, they take conjecture without any evidence and decide it is fact, then state it as such. Then you sprinkle in some of your own lies, saying IAF confirmed an F-35 was in the area.

It's pathetic really, you sad gullible fool. I guess no surprise since you also were all caught up in Iran's fake plane.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syrias war overflowed into Israel.  Israel has been very vocal about the actions and they just responded like they promised.
> 
> Are you aware that the S200 is integrated into the Russians S300 and 400 in Syria?  That means that the control is in Russian hands.  The Syrians were screwing the pooch pretty bad with the S200 systems.  The approval to fire is from the Russians, not the Syrians.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Even if there an integration that doesn´t mean the S-200 systen cannot operate independently. It is the right of a nation to target illegally present warplanes, no approval required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the Russians should trust the Syrian army?  They don't.  How many S-200 sites were overrun in the past?  How many millions has Russia spent on setting up those sites that were lost and the replacement sites?  This is why the Russians have taken control.  The Russians have promised S-300/400/500 to the syrians.  Right now, the only place you will find them is protecting Russian Bases in Syria.  The last thing they want is for their best system to be handed over to the US where it will be dissected.
> 
> I can see it now.  You shoot at me and then cry when I shoot back.  Newsflash, that only works in the second grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You shoot. Claim by claim without source. The Russians did not take control. They are enhancing the the Syrian military´s capabilities. During the war, "rebels" particularly targeted air defense stuff but know the air defense is recovering.
> The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say a lie enough times does it become true?
> 
> Now for another point.  The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate.  That's about 35 miles.  You may know they are there but you can nothing about it.  This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have.  And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large.  Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it.  Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie  - without a source, of course.
> 
> Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.
> 
> S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
> 
> Why are you constantly lying?
Click to expand...


A usual radar site comprises of different radars.  One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it.  You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747.  As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks.  And so does the lock distance.  
Did I use small enough words for you?


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Even if there an integration that doesn´t mean the S-200 systen cannot operate independently. It is the right of a nation to target illegally present warplanes, no approval required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians should trust the Syrian army?  They don't.  How many S-200 sites were overrun in the past?  How many millions has Russia spent on setting up those sites that were lost and the replacement sites?  This is why the Russians have taken control.  The Russians have promised S-300/400/500 to the syrians.  Right now, the only place you will find them is protecting Russian Bases in Syria.  The last thing they want is for their best system to be handed over to the US where it will be dissected.
> 
> I can see it now.  You shoot at me and then cry when I shoot back.  Newsflash, that only works in the second grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You shoot. Claim by claim without source. The Russians did not take control. They are enhancing the the Syrian military´s capabilities. During the war, "rebels" particularly targeted air defense stuff but know the air defense is recovering.
> The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say a lie enough times does it become true?
> 
> Now for another point.  The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate.  That's about 35 miles.  You may know they are there but you can nothing about it.  This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have.  And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large.  Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it.  Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie  - without a source, of course.
> 
> Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.
> 
> S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
> 
> Why are you constantly lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A usual radar site comprises of different radars.  One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it.  You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747.  As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks.  And so does the lock distance.
> Did I use small enough words for you?
Click to expand...

It´s in the article how big a target must be.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians should trust the Syrian army?  They don't.  How many S-200 sites were overrun in the past?  How many millions has Russia spent on setting up those sites that were lost and the replacement sites?  This is why the Russians have taken control.  The Russians have promised S-300/400/500 to the syrians.  Right now, the only place you will find them is protecting Russian Bases in Syria.  The last thing they want is for their best system to be handed over to the US where it will be dissected.
> 
> I can see it now.  You shoot at me and then cry when I shoot back.  Newsflash, that only works in the second grade.
> 
> 
> 
> You shoot. Claim by claim without source. The Russians did not take control. They are enhancing the the Syrian military´s capabilities. During the war, "rebels" particularly targeted air defense stuff but know the air defense is recovering.
> The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say a lie enough times does it become true?
> 
> Now for another point.  The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate.  That's about 35 miles.  You may know they are there but you can nothing about it.  This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have.  And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large.  Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it.  Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie  - without a source, of course.
> 
> Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.
> 
> S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
> 
> Why are you constantly lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A usual radar site comprises of different radars.  One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it.  You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747.  As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks.  And so does the lock distance.
> Did I use small enough words for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It´s in the article how big a target must be.
Click to expand...


There are so many other factors involved.  Each factor shortens each type of radars range.  For instance, the F-35 is not invisible.  You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there.  But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles.  This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if you believed that. Neither the Syrians nor the Russians nor the Israelis claims an F-35 was shot down, it was just wild speculation by some writer that you are now stating as fact. That is how conspiracy nuts like you work, they take conjecture without any evidence and decide it is fact, then state it as such. Then you sprinkle in some of your own lies, saying IAF confirmed an F-35 was in the area.
> 
> It's pathetic really, you sad gullible fool. I guess no surprise since you also were all caught up in Iran's fake plane.


*FOR A LAST SINGLE TIME: I NEVER MADE A CLAIM A F-35 WAS SHOT DOWN! STOP LYING FINALLY STOP FUCKING LYING STOP IT!*



Syrian air defenses respond to new Israeli violation – Syrian Arab News Agency
Did a Russian Missile Really Hit an Israeli F-35?


_*FOR A LAST SINGLE TIME: I NEVER MADE A CLAIM A F-35 WAS SHOT DOWN! STOP LYING FINALLY STOP FUCKING LYING STOP IT!*_


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shoot. Claim by claim without source. The Russians did not take control. They are enhancing the the Syrian military´s capabilities. During the war, "rebels" particularly targeted air defense stuff but know the air defense is recovering.
> The IAF has for a long time not dared to enter Syrian airspace anymore. They are firing from Lebanon. With the new F-35, those cowards tried to resume their air superiority game over Syria and they got their teeth pulled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say a lie enough times does it become true?
> 
> Now for another point.  The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate.  That's about 35 miles.  You may know they are there but you can nothing about it.  This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have.  And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large.  Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it.  Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie  - without a source, of course.
> 
> Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.
> 
> S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
> 
> Why are you constantly lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A usual radar site comprises of different radars.  One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it.  You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747.  As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks.  And so does the lock distance.
> Did I use small enough words for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It´s in the article how big a target must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many other factors involved.  Each factor shortens each type of radars range.  For instance, the F-35 is not invisible.  You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there.  But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles.  This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.
Click to expand...

Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.


----------



## DrainBamage

It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.

Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.

Dumb fuck.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.
> 
> Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.
> 
> Dumb fuck.


You are on ignore.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> That an F-35 was around is not doubted by any side, by the way, only the time differs.


This is how the lies get generated by the tiny little mind of BluePoster. By "around" he means an F-35 was in the Middle East, because no side has said an F_35 was in the area of the missile incident.

This is followed by more lies about an F-35 being shot down.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say a lie enough times does it become true?
> 
> Now for another point.  The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate.  That's about 35 miles.  You may know they are there but you can nothing about it.  This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have.  And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large.  Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it.  Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie  - without a source, of course.
> 
> Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.
> 
> S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
> 
> Why are you constantly lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A usual radar site comprises of different radars.  One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it.  You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747.  As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks.  And so does the lock distance.
> Did I use small enough words for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It´s in the article how big a target must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many other factors involved.  Each factor shortens each type of radars range.  For instance, the F-35 is not invisible.  You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there.  But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles.  This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.
Click to expand...


Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense.  There are considerations that change the range of detection.


Junk in the air returns radar.  Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air.  This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
Size of target.  The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
Counter messures.  Including shape, covering, etc.  The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
Curvature of the Earth.  Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF.  And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long  antennae.  Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.
So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees.  What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth.  But that last factor is available to them if they need it.  Search for him and he will know it.  Try to do a lock and he will know it.  Get a lock and he will know it.  Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself.  This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22.  There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target.  If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.
> 
> Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> You are on ignore.
Click to expand...


Oh, please, please, do me next


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie  - without a source, of course.
> 
> Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.
> 
> S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
> 
> Why are you constantly lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A usual radar site comprises of different radars.  One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it.  You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747.  As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks.  And so does the lock distance.
> Did I use small enough words for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It´s in the article how big a target must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many other factors involved.  Each factor shortens each type of radars range.  For instance, the F-35 is not invisible.  You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there.  But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles.  This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense.  There are considerations that change the range of detection.
> 
> 
> Junk in the air returns radar.  Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air.  This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
> Size of target.  The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
> Counter messures.  Including shape, covering, etc.  The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
> Curvature of the Earth.  Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF.  And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long  antennae.  Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.
> So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees.  What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth.  But that last factor is available to them if they need it.  Search for him and he will know it.  Try to do a lock and he will know it.  Get a lock and he will know it.  Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself.  This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22.  There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target.  If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.
Click to expand...

No source?


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.
> 
> Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> You are on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please, please, do me next
Click to expand...

You´re working hard on it but I am very indulgent...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A usual radar site comprises of different radars.  One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it.  You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747.  As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks.  And so does the lock distance.
> Did I use small enough words for you?
> 
> 
> 
> It´s in the article how big a target must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many other factors involved.  Each factor shortens each type of radars range.  For instance, the F-35 is not invisible.  You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there.  But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles.  This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense.  There are considerations that change the range of detection.
> 
> 
> Junk in the air returns radar.  Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air.  This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
> Size of target.  The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
> Counter messures.  Including shape, covering, etc.  The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
> Curvature of the Earth.  Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF.  And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long  antennae.  Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.
> So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees.  What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth.  But that last factor is available to them if they need it.  Search for him and he will know it.  Try to do a lock and he will know it.  Get a lock and he will know it.  Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself.  This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22.  There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target.  If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No source?
Click to expand...


It's physics 101.  But you never attended the class.  And with over 20 years in the USAF I AM the source.


----------



## DrainBamage

He's got an honorary degree from Syrian-Army-Propaganda University, with an additional certificate from Gullibility Training Inc.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> It´s in the article how big a target must be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many other factors involved.  Each factor shortens each type of radars range.  For instance, the F-35 is not invisible.  You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there.  But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles.  This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense.  There are considerations that change the range of detection.
> 
> 
> Junk in the air returns radar.  Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air.  This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
> Size of target.  The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
> Counter messures.  Including shape, covering, etc.  The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
> Curvature of the Earth.  Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF.  And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long  antennae.  Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.
> So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees.  What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth.  But that last factor is available to them if they need it.  Search for him and he will know it.  Try to do a lock and he will know it.  Get a lock and he will know it.  Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself.  This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22.  There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target.  If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's physics 101.  But you never attended the class.  And with over 20 years in the USAF I AM the source.
Click to expand...

You claims were considered false so far, so sources are required.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> He's got an honorary degree from Syrian-Army-Propaganda University, with an additional certificate from Gullibility Training Inc.



He is full of sticky stuff and lots of different nuts and has a halflife of about 50,000 years.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for.


That is only "unsaid" because it isn't true, the number among all services that might not be upgraded is exactly 108, as stated by DoD. If there were more, they would have stated a higher number. This 200 number is floating around from a blogger who is speculating without facts, nobody has said they have 200 except his imagination.

No decisions have been made, and of the 108, 45 require upgrades that take less than 3 days. 



Manonthestreet said:


> What makes this particularly galling is the aircraft that would be left behind by such a scheme were the most expensive F-35s purchased so far. When the tab for all the aircraft purchased in an immature state is added up, the total comes to nearly $40 billion. That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money


You're not a real deep thinker are you? You're comparing the early year procurement costs when initial models of F-35 are being built and tested to unit costs of later stage programs like Virginia subs. If they didn't spend it to get the program up and running in 2007 we wouldn't now have F-35s rolling off the line that cost less than 100 million apiece, and that will likely cost close to 80 million by 2020.

You keep reading the same sources that you used to assure us that F-35 wouldn't be able to fight, it's racking up ridiculous kill ratios and the pilots love it yet you keep on relying on the same obviously poor fountains of information.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> they know F35 isn't rdy for primetime. Rumbles of EU designing their own now......


Sucks when your speculation meets the cold slap of reality...

Germany declares preference for F-35 to replace Tornado | Jane's 360

The German Air Force has a shortlist of existing platforms to replace its Panavia Tornados from 2025 to 2030, but the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the service’s “preferred choice", a senior service official said on 8 November. Speaking under the Chatham House Rule, the official said that the F-35 already fulfils most of the requirements that the Luftwaffe requires to replace its Tornados in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, and that it offers a number of other benefits besides.

“The Tornado replacement needs to be fifth-generation aircraft that can be detected as late as possible, if at all. It must be able to identify targets from a long way off and to target them as soon as possible. “The German Ministry of Defence [MoD] is looking at several aircraft today, including the F-35 – it is commercially available already, has been ordered by many nations and is being introduced into service today, and has most of the capabilities required.”


How many posts have you had now implying no confidence and intl partners dropping out? Yet all we're getting is more countries jumping on as real performance data and pilot experiences come to light. Germany wasn't even on the map a few years ago, and both Belgium and Switzerland are looking studying it as an option.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Sounds like Naval version is in real trouble...landing gear needs full rework.....Trump can go Jerry Ford and veto and tweet away......they'll never hold up under the pressure.


Sounds like you're wrong again, Chicken Little.

The U.S. Navy recently completed F-35C carrier evaluations aboard the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) off the coast of California in October and the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) off the east coast in September. As part of the evaluations, the Navy tested an improved launch technique and pilot ‘strap in’ procedure to reduce oscillation during catapult launches, and test pilots evaluated our enhanced Organic LED (OLED) helmet display to increase fidelity and eliminate reported green glow. I’m pleased to share that each evaluation generated excellent feedback. Both test and fleet F-35C pilots were pleased with the progress made in reducing oscillations seen during catapult shots – and test pilots reported no ‘greenglow’ present in the new OLED helmet display. While the formal evaluations are still in progress, we are very encouraged by the early performance and confident in the path forward. I’d like to thank all of those involved in designing, implementing and testing these upgrades – you’re playing a critical role in delivering the game changing F-35 capability to the warfighter.




Manonthestreet said:


> I wold only buy the Marine version and some for AF.....not a great many just enough to keep up with retirements.....Ad in some of the F-15s we sell to others that are better than ours and move on to next design.......


This is why you're not in charge of anything. You ignore the fact that every modern aircraft produced has problems when it is introduced, and the logical path is to solve them instead of of screaming that the plane is doomed and can't ever possibly work. Helmet night vision issues you once declared show stopper, fixed. Catapult issue you announced as "real trouble" fixed, without the "full rework" you so expertly prescribed as necessary.


----------



## DrainBamage

Contrary to Manonthestreet's "wisdom" that international partners would drop out, they just keep piling up...

US Air Force official confirms rumors of F-35 talks with UAE
DUBAI — The U.S. Defense Department has begun talks with the United Arab Emirates about a potential sale of F-35 joint strike fighters, the U.S. Air Force’s number-two general said Friday.

The statements, made by Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Stephen Wilson during a roundtable with reporters ahead of Dubai Airshow, confirm an earlier report by Defense News. The story cited sources close to the talks that claimed President Donald Trump’s administration was considering delivering a classified briefing on the jet’s capabilities to UAE officials.


----------



## Bleipriester

F-35 incapable of fighting in air combat but might be forced to due to lack of other models.

What if Russia's Su-35 Went to War with America's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> F-35 incapable of fighting in air combat but might be forced to due to lack of other models.
> 
> What if Russia's Su-35 Went to War with America's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
> America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?



Nice try.  It should be noted that when you go to fight one F-35 you also have to fight the Topcap of F-22s and F-15s which will clean the SU-35s clock in just shear numbers.  Plus, until the merge, the SU-35 is more worried about incoming missiles from the F-35 than it is about what it's going to do once it wades through that.  4 against 4.  The F-35A has a 17-1 kill rate against the F-15.  Like the F-22, the biggest gripe from the Eagle Drivers is that they aren't even aware of the F-35 until they start losing buddies.

Once again, you are shooting your mouth out your rectum.


----------



## DrainBamage

Dave Majumdar's experience as a pilot? Zero. Dave Majumdar's experience in the military? Zero. Dude writes clickbait articles for naive idiots like BleePusser, and doesn't bother rationalizing how much F-35 has dominated other aircraft in exercises because he knows the low-information types like BleatRooster will just lap it up without bothering to apply an ounce of critical thinking.

SU-35, is an upgraded SU-30, which is an upgraded SU-27.  It's basically a late 70s era design with additional bells and whistles.


----------



## Bleipriester

Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes. Is it another partisan, anti-American source? Don´t make a fool out of your self with the ever same nonsense.


----------



## DrainBamage

As usual PleirBluster with a comment real short on any facts, the king of making an utter ass of himself reigns forever.

I'd love to hear you explain how an SU-35 isn't an upgraded versions of an SU-27, designed along with MIG-29 to fight F-15s.


----------



## Bleipriester

The post is for Hunt, not for you.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes.


That is an opinion piece from 2015 that you linked to, not news. He isn't a pilot, he isn't military, he was making assumptions about how the planes would behave and perform before any actual information on it performing against other aircraft. What happened when F-35s started showing up in exercises in 2016? Domination, including against the F-15Es they use to simulate Flankers.

One thing you didn't link to from same journalist Dave Majumdar, was his evolving opinions in 2017 after USAF let him fly with aggressor squadron.

“It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)

Flying back to Langley, the experience was an eye-opener. I have been covering the Raptor and the F-35 since beginning of both programs. It is one thing to intellectually grasp the power of stealth, but seeing it in action makes one a believer—*our flight had no idea, no warning from the AWACS or GCI that we were about to be hit until it was all over. It’s nearly impossible to fight an enemy you can’t see. *While the Raptor would be the most formidable fighter in the world due to its raw performance even without stealth, *it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors*. “If the pilots of both could carry a 9mm and open the canopy inflight, they would have 15 more kills per sortie,” the senior Air Force official told me. “It's like fighting Mr. Invisible.”

Even that moron is starting to figure it out, but we still have you in here linking to articles from years ago before F-35 was actually flying against aggressors.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is an opinion piece from 2015 that you linked to, not news. He isn't a pilot, he isn't military, he was making assumptions about how the planes would behave and perform before any actual information on it performing against other aircraft. What happened when F-35s started showing up in exercises in 2016? Domination, including against the F-15Es they use to simulate Flankers.
> 
> One thing you didn't link to from same journalist Dave Majumdar, was his evolving opinions in 2017 after USAF let him fly with aggressor squadron.
> 
> “It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)
> 
> Flying back to Langley, the experience was an eye-opener. I have been covering the Raptor and the F-35 since beginning of both programs. It is one thing to intellectually grasp the power of stealth, but seeing it in action makes one a believer—*our flight had no idea, no warning from the AWACS or GCI that we were about to be hit until it was all over. It’s nearly impossible to fight an enemy you can’t see. *While the Raptor would be the most formidable fighter in the world due to its raw performance even without stealth, *it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors*. “If the pilots of both could carry a 9mm and open the canopy inflight, they would have 15 more kills per sortie,” the senior Air Force official told me. “It's like fighting Mr. Invisible.”
> 
> Even that moron is starting to figure it out, but we still have you in here linking to articles from years ago before F-35 was actually flying against aggressors.
Click to expand...

So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Dave Majumdar's experience as a pilot? Zero. Dave Majumdar's experience in the military? Zero. Dude writes clickbait articles for naive idiots like BleePusser, and doesn't bother rationalizing how much F-35 has dominated other aircraft in exercises because he knows the low-information types like BleatRooster will just lap it up without bothering to apply an ounce of critical thinking.
> 
> SU-35, is an upgraded SU-30, which is an upgraded SU-27.  It's basically a late 70s era design with additional bells and whistles.



I did a little research on what is the use of Thrust Vectoring and why it never went onto the F-15 and 16.   During the X-29 and F-16XL it was found that thrust vectoring could only be more effective at lower speeds.  Lower than either of the 15 and 16 operated at.  The most used military use of speed for combat was right around 450kts and faster.  If thrust vectoring was to be used at that speed, the Gs involved would exceed what the pilot and airframe could sustain.   You can go off center with a rudder kick at that speed for a few seconds but not sustain it without thrust vectoring without changing your direction of flight by much.  Hence, the reason the production F-16s were never produced although it was just a modification had they wished to do it.  

This is why the F-22 only uses thrust vectoring on the vertical plane.  It kicks the tail up or down which changes the nose position.  If the F-22 is in it's combat speed, the thrust vectoring will have little affect to help it turn but it can help to kick the nose up or down changed the turn rate slightly.  But that's about it.

For the most part, Thrust Vectoring is impressive at a air show where the speeds are kept slow.  But in combat, thrust vectoring has little affect otherwise.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.


The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.

It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is an opinion piece from 2015 that you linked to, not news. He isn't a pilot, he isn't military, he was making assumptions about how the planes would behave and perform before any actual information on it performing against other aircraft. What happened when F-35s started showing up in exercises in 2016? Domination, including against the F-15Es they use to simulate Flankers.
> 
> One thing you didn't link to from same journalist Dave Majumdar, was his evolving opinions in 2017 after USAF let him fly with aggressor squadron.
> 
> “It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: How I Went to War Against Stealth F-22 Raptors and F-35s (And Lost Badly)
> 
> Flying back to Langley, the experience was an eye-opener. I have been covering the Raptor and the F-35 since beginning of both programs. It is one thing to intellectually grasp the power of stealth, but seeing it in action makes one a believer—*our flight had no idea, no warning from the AWACS or GCI that we were about to be hit until it was all over. It’s nearly impossible to fight an enemy you can’t see. *While the Raptor would be the most formidable fighter in the world due to its raw performance even without stealth, *it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors*. “If the pilots of both could carry a 9mm and open the canopy inflight, they would have 15 more kills per sortie,” the senior Air Force official told me. “It's like fighting Mr. Invisible.”
> 
> Even that moron is starting to figure it out, but we still have you in here linking to articles from years ago before F-35 was actually flying against aggressors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.
Click to expand...


And F-15s, F-16s and more.  They simulate what our pilots would encounter against a real enemy air force in both ground and air.  And if need be, they have a tarmac full of Mig-29s they can play with.  

There are only a handful of Jet  Fighters that will go into the history books as great.  While the chapter on what you see today is still being written, the last completed chapters includes:

The F-5E which can turn inside even a F-16 and is hard to pick up on radar due to it's size.  There are quite a few still in service around the world.  The T-38 Talon that is used in Red Flag could also be called a F-5 since there is almost no difference.  It's still being upgraded and modified and will be for at least a decade.  Iran seems to really like it.  Their newest ideas are from the F-5.  

The Mig-17 which has given more modern AC fits in battle.  This little motor scooter can still fight against the Gen 4 fighters like it's done all along.  

The F-104 got quite a raw deal in the history books due to the Germans wanting it to do everything.  The other nations fell madly in love with their versions.   The Germans used a different version.  They used a F-104G which was highly modified as a bomber.  Plus, their pilot training and ground support was more than a little abysmal.  The Italians loved the little rocket ship so much that they had it in their inventory into the 21st century.  The F-104A variant could also manuever as well as any 4th gen including the F-15 and SU-27.  Something that went from the middle 50s went on to stay in production for over 30 years is something special.  Pilots say that a F-104A, even today, could give the modern Fighters in service fits.

The F-15 gets the nod for 4th gen.  It's combat record says it all.  And it's still in service and being upgraded as we speak to keep it around for at least another 

The longevity of those 4 may never be reached again.  Considering 3 of the 4 are still in service throughout the world says volumes.  

Those three's shoes are some pretty big shoes to fill.  And in the 4th gen, only the F-15 fills that role.  In the 5th gen, it's the F-22.  The chapter on the 4th gen has already been written.  The 5th gen has yet to be finished but it's getting pretty close to being finished.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Iran seems to really like it.  Their newest ideas are from the F-5.


Hah that's a great point. How many times has BluePeeter pointed to Iran's homegrown F-5 knockoff as evidence of their great technical prowess, now when it's being used to represent MIG-29s in the air he's suddenly discounting the validity of the exercise. Linking to Dave Majumdar's older stuff when it was just guesswork, but now that Dave Majumdar has actually flown in exercises with 5th gens and changed his mind let's all start discounting Dave Majumdar.

He's trying so hard to make facts fit his retard worldview he twists himself into contradictory logic knots.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran seems to really like it.  Their newest ideas are from the F-5.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's a great point. How many times has BluePeeter pointed to Iran's homegrown F-5 knockoff as evidence of their great technical prowess, now when it's being used to represent MIG-29s in the air he's suddenly discounting the validity of the exercise. Linking to Dave Majumdar's older stuff when it was just guesswork, but now that Dave Majumdar has actually flown in exercises with 5th gens and changed his mind let's all start discounting Dave Majumdar.
> 
> He's trying so hard to make facts fit his retard worldview he twists himself into contradictory logic knots.
Click to expand...


HE's trying to spread Dis information.  Nothing more.  It's a thing only the Russians are doing right now.  If even a small part of the feces he throws at a wall sticks he figures it was worth it.  How dare you to bring your feces scraper to the game and clean up his wall all the time.  The nerve you must have


----------



## sakinago

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...


Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future. 

We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost. 

Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sakinago said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future.
> 
> We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost.
> 
> Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.
Click to expand...


The F-35 was never intended to replace the F-22.  It is to replace the ground attack birds of all shapes and sizes.  

The IR, past about 35 miles, is worthless.  While it sounds promising, there is just too much heat loss over a greater distance.  If you are able to pick up the F-35, you can reasonably sure that a package is almost delivered to your doorstep.  

The F-35 has already surpassed the F-18 in performance.  And it's already at least equal to the F-16. IT was never intended to be able to surpass the F-22 in performance and nothing else out there can as well.  The F-35 is for contested airspace where the Gen 4 fighters would all parish pretty quickly.  It is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15.


----------



## sakinago

Daryl Hunt said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future.
> 
> We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost.
> 
> Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 was never intended to replace the F-22.  It is to replace the ground attack birds of all shapes and sizes.
> 
> The IR, past about 35 miles, is worthless.  While it sounds promising, there is just too much heat loss over a greater distance.  If you are able to pick up the F-35, you can reasonably sure that a package is almost delivered to your doorstep.
> 
> The F-35 has already surpassed the F-18 in performance.  And it's already at least equal to the F-16. IT was never intended to be able to surpass the F-22 in performance and nothing else out there can as well.  The F-35 is for contested airspace where the Gen 4 fighters would all parish pretty quickly.  It is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15.
Click to expand...

Again it’s only a matter of time before infrared gets beefed up enough to be a decent counter to stealth. I don’t think it’s going to make stealth inert within 5 years, but it will cause plenty trouble for stealth, and in 10 years it could make it basically inert. We’re already working on satellite with these sensors, angling them at the sky and just slightly away from the surface, so there’s less background interference. Same kind of tech picking up red shift from distance stars with enough accuracy to determine the types of planets, and locations of the planets...10s of 100s of light years away. I’m fine with f35 replacing Harriers and even some carrier launch JSF, but planning ahead suggests that we shouldn’t be stopping the f22 program, and instead be expanding it. The price is too high for the f35, for a plane that’s kind of a one trick pony with stealth, compared to gen 4s. I don’t want our eggs in one basket. I thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to create a carrier launch f22 JSFs, and at the very least add a couple hundred more f22s, and cut back on a couple hundred f35s. I much more confortable with paying a little more for a plane that’s gonna be much more survivable if and when infrared starts eating away at stealth. It’s just a better long term investment. Not saying cut the f35, I’m saying reduce it, add more f22s, and get a JSF version of it. If we’re gonna spend 85 million, spend some more for better survivalbility and protect the investment. Or put back in the 2nd engine for at least half the f35s, even though it’s gonna up the price, beef the planes up a little. We don’t need all to be beefed up, but beef up enough.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sakinago said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors. Now infrared isn’t yet perfected, and the range is limited...but it’s only going to get better and better. Once it does, yes the f35 is a lame duck and a huge waste of money, and we’re planning to put 2000 of these things in the air!? It’s already the most expensive weapon in the history of man, and will be rendered inert in the very near future.
> 
> We should’ve never ended the f22 program prematurely like we did. The f22 is the best in every single category of fighter jets, can climb better, maneuver better, better sensors, more power, it can reach Mach speeds without hitting afterburners and outrun and out last any other plane when it needs to run...and it’s also a stealth fighter. The f35 was supposed to be its successor, but it’s little more than a spy plane than it is fighter or JSF. Even though the f22 paved the way in R&D costs for the tech that the f35 uses...for some reason it’s had bug after bug, is severely under powered, has a tendency to catch on fire...and is still somehow the most expensive weapon system ever with the bill coming in at a whopping 1 trillion. Even when the infrared sensors are able to provide a good enough counter to stealth, the f22 can still stand and out fight any other jet out there (except maybe the j20). The f35 can’t, a gen 4 that’s an eighth of the cost with updated sensors will blow these 85 million dollar planes right out of the sky. The f22 is more expensive per plane...but again it can stand and successfully fight, and if need be actually run...which makes it well worth the cost.
> 
> Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no. Until we fix the problems with the f35, we should definitely not be throwing all our eggs into that basket. We should at the very least restart the f22 program, reduce the order for the f35, and should seriously consider pivoting the f22 platform for at the very least carrier take off, and possible vertical take off. This is a very reasonable proposal. A plane that’s more expensive yes, but can actually score a ridiculously high K/D ratio with or without stealth, meaning it will be a viable plane in the near future, is definitely the way better investment than a plane that’s almost just as expensive...and will become obsolete (if it hasn’t already become so) in the very near future. We don’t have to get rid of the f35, but it’s going to need an f22 to clear the skies first, and hopefully we’ll have a JSF version of the f22 to clear SAM platforms that will also be updated with infrared sensors eventually. Only then will the f35 be somewhat useful. My opinion, we should just have the f35 replace the harrier, and have f22 our main carrier launch JSF, as well as our main air superiority plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 was never intended to replace the F-22.  It is to replace the ground attack birds of all shapes and sizes.
> 
> The IR, past about 35 miles, is worthless.  While it sounds promising, there is just too much heat loss over a greater distance.  If you are able to pick up the F-35, you can reasonably sure that a package is almost delivered to your doorstep.
> 
> The F-35 has already surpassed the F-18 in performance.  And it's already at least equal to the F-16. IT was never intended to be able to surpass the F-22 in performance and nothing else out there can as well.  The F-35 is for contested airspace where the Gen 4 fighters would all parish pretty quickly.  It is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again it’s only a matter of time before infrared gets beefed up enough to be a decent counter to stealth. I don’t think it’s going to make stealth inert within 5 years, but it will cause plenty trouble for stealth, and in 10 years it could make it basically inert. We’re already working on satellite with these sensors, angling them at the sky and just slightly away from the surface, so there’s less background interference. Same kind of tech picking up red shift from distance stars with enough accuracy to determine the types of planets, and locations of the planets...10s of 100s of light years away. I’m fine with f35 replacing Harriers and even some carrier launch JSF, but planning ahead suggests that we shouldn’t be stopping the f22 program, and instead be expanding it. The price is too high for the f35, for a plane that’s kind of a one trick pony with stealth, compared to gen 4s. I don’t want our eggs in one basket. I thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to create a carrier launch f22 JSFs, and at the very least add a couple hundred more f22s, and cut back on a couple hundred f35s. I much more confortable with paying a little more for a plane that’s gonna be much more survivable if and when infrared starts eating away at stealth. It’s just a better long term investment. Not saying cut the f35, I’m saying reduce it, add more f22s, and get a JSF version of it. If we’re gonna spend 85 million, spend some more for better survivalbility and protect the investment. Or put back in the 2nd engine for at least half the f35s, even though it’s gonna up the price, beef the planes up a little. We don’t need all to be beefed up, but beef up enough.
Click to expand...


On most of your post I agree.  I won't go into what I disagree with.  In think both of us know how we differ.

The last batch of F-22s went for 143mil each.  The first batch went for around 240mil.  The price did come down dramatically.  I agree, we should have produced more.  But the cost is scary.  

The problem the Navy and Marines have is range.  We dramatically need the B and the C.  This is the first time that carrier based birds rival the land based ones in performance and range.  Plus, the F-35B has already shown that it can work in tandem with the ships to increase the range of the ship based systems.  The C should be even better with it's added fuel range.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar



What that means is, if you slow down enough to utilize your thrust  vectoring with you SU-35 then some dude in an F-15 will rock your world.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What that means is, if you slow down enough to utilize your thrust  vectoring with you SU-35 then some dude in an F-15 will rock your world.
Click to expand...

no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What that means is, if you slow down enough to utilize your thrust  vectoring with you SU-35 then some dude in an F-15 will rock your world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....
Click to expand...


Service Ceiling 

F-35  50K
F-18  50K
F-16  50K
Mig-29/35  59K
SU-27/30/35 62K
F-15C and E  65K
F-22  65K
Rafale  50K

Now, what was your point again?  Lightweight fighters are almost all around 50K service ceiling but can go higher if need be.  The F-15 can almost make it to Outer Space if need be.

The F-35 will be loaded with 6 missiles and a few small diameter bombs with lots of gas and maintain 1.6 mach.  Meanwhile, you load out the SU series with 4 missiles, two drop tanks you are not not able to even reach Mach 1.4.  The exceptions to the rules are the F-22 and the F-15 which can get at least Mach 1.8 with 6 Missiles and the F-15 can carry external fuel.  Plus, if you load your SUs out with extra gas and full missile payloads, you might be able to reach 50k but not by much.

If the F-35 sees you are you a target.  Yes, if you see the F-35 it's also a target.  But want to bet who sees whom first?


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.
> 
> 
> 
> The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.
> 
> It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?
Click to expand...

Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.
> 
> 
> 
> The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.
> 
> It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.
Click to expand...


They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:

There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.

There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.  

The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy

The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.

All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.
> 
> 
> 
> The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.
> 
> It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:
> 
> There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.
> 
> There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.
> 
> The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy
> 
> The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.
> 
> All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.
Click to expand...

You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.


----------



## sakinago

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.
> 
> 
> 
> The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.
> 
> It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:
> 
> There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.
> 
> There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.
> 
> The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy
> 
> The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.
> 
> All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say it replaces the f15 f22, those are more air to air fighters, fighters in the purest sense. It more replaces the f16, more of a strike plane that if fighters are scrambled against it, it can defend itself. My issue with it is, I’m not ok that it relies on stealth to cover up the rest of its performance. And that we prematurely stopped the f22, that can only be launched from an airfield, which adds an extra logistical hitch if we want the f22 to be flying top cap above the f35s probably launching from a carrier. As long as stealth works, sure it’s ok...but the counter to stealth is on its way. And if you throw up a bunch cheaper 4th gens with updated sensors against the f35, even if the 35 takes out a few of the other gen 4s before it goes down, you’re still loosing a 85 million dollar plane. Or if SAM sites get some upgraded sensors, and it only works 1 times out of 8, that’s probably a financial trade an enemy would make every time. 

Either beef up the f35 with the extra engine, spend the money as long as it means it’s got a better ability to fight and run in a tight spot. It doesn’t have to be just as good as the f22, just give the plane some more survivability and longevity into future warfare. Or just use the F22 platform and pivot that to a carrier launch to make it much easier to cover up for the f35 without having to coordinate launching that from a base hours before to meet up with an f35 off of a carrier. Or better yet come up with JSF version of the F22, reduce the order and save the f35s as they are now for once the skies are completely clear, and as the new harrier for the marines. If/when these infrared sensors get beefed up enough to be able to better counter stealth, you might as well just send f16s out instead, that’s gonna be much cheaper. 

We’ve made the mistake of relying on new tech too heavily and have paid the price for it before. Take Nam for example, A2A missiles were a huge jump in tech. And even though the F4 was a superior plane, our pilots relied on missiles too much over tacticts, and got into trouble, and we were loosing against lower grade planes. The typhoon with infrared sensors gave the f22 some trouble not too long ago. I’ll still take the f22 over the typhoon anyday, but the f22 isn’t invincible, and the f35 is even less invincible. 

All I’m saying is cover up those damn vents on the Death Star. Spend the extra 10 mil or whatever it takes. We’re spending a lot of money here, go the extra mile and make sure we do our best to make sure these planes are still in service and worth it 30 years from now. I don’t have a problem with spending money when it comes to ensuring air superiority, that makes the rest of war become a lot cheaper. But don’t play rock, paper, scissors with the f35 throwing out paper every time. Have it be throwing 2 options every time.


----------



## WorldWatcher

sakinago said:


> Or just use the F22 platform and pivot that to a carrier launch to make it much easier to cover up for the f35 without having to coordinate launching that from a base hours before to meet up with an f35 off of a carrier.




I enjoy reading the thread but don't pop in very often but I'll comment on the above speaking as someone involved with Naval Aviation for 20 years working both the flight desk and as aircrew on multiple fixed wing platforms.

I doubt if "pivoting" an F-22 to carrier capability is possible at this point (irregardless of the cost of firing up production lines again).

(Not in priority order, just mental wanderings.)

#1 - The landing gear would have to be strengthened to account for carrier landings (along with the underlying fuselage).

#2 - The nose gear would have to be strengthened to account for catapult launches (along with the underlying fuselage).

#3 - The rear fuselage would have to modified and strengthened to for an arresting hook and the stress of carrier landings.

#4 - The size of the F-22 is significantly larger than the F-35 in terms of ground footprint and there is a fixed amount of space on the deck.  The F-22 was not designed with swing wings or folding wings so that really hurts.

#5 - Carrier birds need slow and low performance in the carrier recovery phase to be able to land on the ship (which is one reason why the F-14 incorporated swing wings, for slower speeds).

#6 - In-flight refueling would have to be changed to the basket model used on Naval aircraft.

#7 - Avionics would have to added and incorporated for the carrier environment.



Basically you are talking going back to the drawing board and redesigning a completely new aircraft (my look similar but different under the skin).  Most of those things are going to add weight in the order of tons to the bird and have a negative impact on performance.




>>>>


----------



## sakinago

WorldWatcher said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or just use the F22 platform and pivot that to a carrier launch to make it much easier to cover up for the f35 without having to coordinate launching that from a base hours before to meet up with an f35 off of a carrier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy reading the thread but don't pop in very often but I'll comment on the above speaking as someone involved with Naval Aviation for 20 years working both the flight desk and as aircrew on multiple fixed wing platforms.
> 
> I doubt if "pivoting" an F-22 to carrier capability is possible at this point (irregardless of the cost of firing up production lines again).
> 
> (Not in priority order, just mental wanderings.)
> 
> #1 - The landing gear would have to be strengthened to account for carrier landings (along with the underlying fuselage).
> 
> #2 - The nose gear would have to be strengthened to account for catapult launches (along with the underlying fuselage).
> 
> #3 - The rear fuselage would have to modified and strengthened to for an arresting hook and the stress of carrier landings.
> 
> #4 - The size of the F-22 is significantly larger than the F-35 in terms of ground footprint and there is a fixed amount of space on the deck.  The F-22 was not designed with swing wings or folding wings so that really hurts.
> 
> #5 - Carrier birds need slow and low performance in the carrier recovery phase to be able to land on the ship (which is one reason why the F-14 incorporated swing wings, for slower speeds).
> 
> #6 - In-flight refueling would have to be changed to the basket model used on Naval aircraft.
> 
> #7 - Avionics would have to added and incorporated for the carrier environment.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically you are talking going back to the drawing board and redesigning a completely new aircraft (my look similar but different under the skin).  Most of those things are going to add weight in the order of tons to the bird and have a negative impact on performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Very fair points, and I suggested the carrier launch version because while it’s still a jump in design, it’s still doable. After all we did it with the f35, which was planned with that in mind ahed of time, so it will be more of jump sure than the f35, but still doable. Sure at the trade off of some performance and spacing, but I still like the abilities of a lesser f22 vs any other plane out there, including the f35. And the ability to launch one from a carrier is huge advantage, and will go a long way in protecting not only the f35 on sorties, but also the entire carrier group. Imagine a small squadron of J-20s going up against a carrier group, even with f35s, that’s still kind of a scary spot. So spacing wise you trade off a few f22s for 5 or so f18/f15.... that’s still added value. Assuming we can even detect that attack coming (I hope we can). 

At the very least I think that you could agree we should not have ended the f22 program...and maybe a carrier launch is probably a wise idea.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.
> 
> 
> 
> The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.
> 
> It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:
> 
> There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.
> 
> There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.
> 
> The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy
> 
> The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.
> 
> All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.
Click to expand...


Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder.  Not a good use of experienced pilots.  The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder.  You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots.  You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce.  Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.

When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15.  Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap.  Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they simulated air victories over - 1959 - Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer planes. Well done, GainBrain.
> 
> 
> 
> The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.
> 
> It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:
> 
> There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.
> 
> There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.
> 
> The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy
> 
> The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.
> 
> All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder.  Not a good use of experienced pilots.  The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder.  You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots.  You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce.  Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.
> 
> When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15.  Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap.  Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.

"But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”

Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."

Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> The T-38s were there simply to provide real representations of enemy fighters in the air, the aggresors were using AWACS, ground radars, and F-15Es in the same flight to detect the blue team and still nobody in their flight knew where the enemy was until they were suddenly shot down. It isn't like they were dog fighting F-22s versus T-38s, if anything the T-38s probably provided smaller targets than an SU-35 that is twice the size.
> 
> It is quite telling that you favor the opinion of DM from articles a couple years ago but now that he's the only journalist that has actually had hands on experience and has changed his opinion on 5th gen aircraft you're not interested. Chasing your conclusion much?
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:
> 
> There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.
> 
> There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.
> 
> The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy
> 
> The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.
> 
> All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder.  Not a good use of experienced pilots.  The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder.  You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots.  You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce.  Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.
> 
> When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15.  Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap.  Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.
> 
> "But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
> 
> As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”
> 
> Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."
> 
> Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.
Click to expand...


You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27?    The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29.  Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill.  It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged.  Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:
> 
> There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.
> 
> There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.
> 
> The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy
> 
> The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.
> 
> All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder.  Not a good use of experienced pilots.  The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder.  You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots.  You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce.  Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.
> 
> When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15.  Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap.  Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.
> 
> "But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
> 
> As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”
> 
> Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."
> 
> Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27?    The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29.  Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill.  It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged.  Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.
Click to expand...

I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also have no idea where the F-35s are either.  Your article was a good one and factual.  But you read in things that just aren't there.  The way it goes to give the SU-35 the advantage:
> 
> There are NO F-22s in the general area.  Why would this happen when the F-22s would be flying topcap over the F-35.
> 
> There is no F-15C Missile trucks within 100 miles.
> 
> The F-35 somehow ceased to be stealthy
> 
> The F-35 pilots are real dim bulbs.
> 
> All of the above needs to go wrong for the SU-35 to get into a dogfight with a F-35.  If any of the mistakes don't happen then the SU-35 is probably going to be lost.  Yes, it can happen but at more than a million to one, I doubt if the Russian Pilots are depending on it.  Like your article says, it's more the defense systems (ground installations) that threaten the F-35.  And, even then, the F-35 is a huge threat to them as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder.  Not a good use of experienced pilots.  The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder.  You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots.  You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce.  Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.
> 
> When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15.  Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap.  Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.
> 
> "But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
> 
> As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”
> 
> Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."
> 
> Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27?    The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29.  Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill.  It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged.  Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.
Click to expand...


Easy answer.  You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar.  You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it.  That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.


----------



## DrainBamage

sakinago said:


> Nope there is a serious problem. Now the stealth is suppose to cover up for the highly underpowered very expensive jet. Which is ok as long as stealth delivers...problem is there’s already a counter to stealth, in infrared sensors.


Cost of F-35 is comparable to other modern fighters, but it is far more capable than any of them with exception of air-to-air role of F-22.

There are lots of challenges to this infrared panacea argument that pops up every once in awhile, but bottom line the farther something else the more focused an infrared sensor has to be to detect it and there is no reason radar won't continue to advance as well always giving the stealthier airplane the ability to get first look and pick and choose whether and how to engage.



sakinago said:


> Now is the f35 more “versatile” than the f22...maybe when it comes to taking off and landing, but when it comes to flying, hell no.


F-35 can hit moving targets because it has a built in laser designator, F-22 has no such capability.
F-35 can carry 2,000 lb class weapons internally, F-22 cannot.
The ASQ-239 on F-35 has far more advanced electronic attack capabilities than F-22
F-35's DAS provides 360 degree coverage, it works with EOTS and the target database to have far better coverage of what is on the ground than AAR56 gives the F-22
F-22 dominates RF spectrum, but F-35 dominates RF, IR, and electro-optical spectrum, and it's computers are far more advanced to process and give the pilot information on what it sees.

Bottom line F-22 is the better air superiority fighter while is better strike, CAS, SEAD, etc. roles


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar





Manonthestreet said:


> no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....


You've been chanting this in the thread for literally years now, yet cannot explain how F-16s have shot down so many MIG-29s that fly higher and faster.

If you look at stats on air-to-air engagements in the modern era the missiles are almost always launched at medium altitude and transonic speeds. You have this naive fantasy that every aircraft goes constantly jetting around at their maximum speed and altitude, that isn't the case they fly at an optimal cruising speed and altitude because that is the only way to effectively ingress/egress the battlefield. 

It's also funny that you keep chanting it despite F-35s mopping the floor of F-15Es that have far greater top speed, altitude, and have newer AESA radars. We're not talking barely, we're talking 20-1 type kill ratios yet you are still in here blindly bleating the same thing about how the F-35s will all get shot down.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Tell me why my 2017 - not that it matters - article is fake news and yours not, DrainedBrain. Of course, the trainers had no idea were the F-22 were.


I already tried once but I keep forgetting the level I'm talking to here.

You article from 2017 is basically a republish of the same one from 2015 with some formatting changes. Don't believe me? Here are direct pastes from them:

2015: America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?
While the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is slated to become the mainstay of the Pentagon’s tactical fighter fleet, not everyone nation on Earth can afford to fly an expensive fifth-generation fighter.

Even Russia and China are not likely to attempt to develop an all fifth-generation fighter fleet—instead, for the foreseeable future, the derivatives of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker air superiority fighter will make up the bulk of their tactical air arsenals. The most potent Flanker derivative is the Su-35, which is a much-improved version with vastly improved avionics, engines and airframe. In the years ahead, this latest Flanker-E is likely to proliferate around the world.

2017: What if Russia's Su-35 Went to War with America's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
While the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is slated to become the mainstay of the Pentagon’s tactical fighter fleet, not everyone nation on Earth can afford to fly an expensive fifth-generation fighter.

Even Russia and China are not likely to attempt to develop an all fifth-generation fighter fleet—instead, for the foreseeable future, the derivatives of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker air superiority fighter will make up the bulk of their tactical air arsenals. The most potent Flanker derivative is the Su-35, which is a much-improved version with vastly improved avionics, engines and airframe. In the years ahead, this latest Flanker-E is likely to proliferate around the world.


Okay does Mr. "I posted something newer" finally get it that they are both the same content from 2015?

Now let's take it farther, try to stay with us here genius. The article is an opinion piece. It isn't "news" in that there is some new evidence that F-35 was inferior, the blogger/author was speculating because in 2015 we had never actually seen F-35s fight against other aircraft in exercises. Then SAME AUTHOR got to participate in an exercise and changed his mind, saying it was a real eye opener how much stealth dominates and that the F-35 was actually a potent air-to-air threat.

So you're choosing the believe SAME AUTHOR before he had hands on experience and changed his mind, while dismissing his his later opinions.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow and low still equals dead as it has from beginning of airwar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles ...ccombine little AI with irst and Houston we have a problem....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been chanting this in the thread for literally years now, yet cannot explain how F-16s have shot down so many MIG-29s that fly higher and faster.
> 
> If you look at stats on air-to-air engagements in the modern era the missiles are almost always launched at medium altitude and transonic speeds. You have this naive fantasy that every aircraft goes constantly jetting around at their maximum speed and altitude, that isn't the case they fly at an optimal cruising speed and altitude because that is the only way to effectively ingress/egress the battlefield.
> 
> It's also funny that you keep chanting it despite F-35s mopping the floor of F-15Es that have far greater top speed, altitude, and have newer AESA radars. We're not talking barely, we're talking 20-1 type kill ratios yet you are still in here blindly bleating the same thing about how the F-35s will all get shot down.
Click to expand...

Years eh....and f-35 still isn't rdy for prime time.....blue clue right there


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is *almost invincible in close air combat.*


You clearly don't know what the word invincible means. The states here are three numbers: air to air kills, air to air losses, and losses to ground fire:

MiG-29 
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0
Transnistra War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0
Brothers in Rescue incident (Cuba) 2-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0
Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1

So your "invincible" plane went 0-2 in Lebanon, 0-5 in Iraq, 0-6 in Kosovo, and 3-5 in NE Africa. Note almost all of the Iraq/Syria/Balkans were in combat with American built aircraft, I think there was a Brit Tornado in there too and the Ethiopians were flying Flankers.

The only conflict it actually had a positive kill ratio was Cuba (against two Cessnas) and in Georgia against a spy plane.

So when you say invincible you mean the plane that has lost in combat with almost every peer adversary, and proven capable against turboprops and unmanned spy planes.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Years eh....and f-35 still isn't rdy for prime time.....blue clue right there


Ready enough to throw a 20-1 kill ratio and convince one of the bloggers that used to be your hero.

And of course you're ready to continue conspicuously avoiding addressing how these MIG-29s keep getting dominated by planes that fly slower, lower, and how combat stats prove high speed is rarely in play when planes get shot down.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are playing joker cards. F-15 and F-22 are not parts of the F-35. So I am giving some Mig-29 and Mig 31 into our game. The article says that the air combat abilities of the F-35 are limited to mostly defensive measures. But the actual purpose of the F-35 is to be a multi-role jet fighter that replaces planes like F-15 and F-22. This is why they plan to supply a large number of F-35. If the F-35 cannot replace them, it is a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder.  Not a good use of experienced pilots.  The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder.  You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots.  You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce.  Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.
> 
> When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15.  Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap.  Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.
> 
> "But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
> 
> As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”
> 
> Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."
> 
> Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27?    The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29.  Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill.  It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged.  Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar.  You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it.  That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.
Click to expand...

My airforce is the strongest.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mig-31, like it's predecessor the Mig-25, is just cannon fodder.  Not a good use of experienced pilots.  The Mig-29 is also cannon fodder.  You can throw them out all you wish but just write off your pilots.  You can make more planes but a Pilot takes years and millions to produce.  Meanwhile, we just make for AA missiles for a lot less time and money.
> 
> When you fight a F-35 you also fight the F-22 and the F-15.  Same goes for trying to fight the F-16 since they will have the other two flying top cap.  Unlike the 70s and 80s, there isn't enough equipment margin to offset the technological advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.
> 
> "But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
> 
> As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”
> 
> Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."
> 
> Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27?    The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29.  Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill.  It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged.  Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar.  You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it.  That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My airforce is the strongest.
Click to expand...


Stronger than what?  I will admit that your Air Force is stronger than Luxemburgs.  So your Air Force is so strong you can afford to lose most of it's pilots and ground installations?  You keep posting these lies over and over again, Comrade.


----------



## DrainBamage

His Air Force has the "invincible MIG-29", which is 3-18 versus peer adversaries.

It is difficult to set the stupid bar higher than calling that plane invincible, but BlowPuffer always manages to surprise us.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> His Air Force has the "invincible MIG-29", which is 3-18 versus peer adversaries.
> 
> It is difficult to set the stupid bar higher than calling that plane invincible, but BlowPuffer always manages to surprise us.



India has declined buying the Mig-35 which is an updated Mig-29.  Russia promised a whole huge list of improvements but in the end, it's just a reengined version with almost no other updates.  Going to fly around with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on it.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.
> 
> "But despite all these limitations, once the furball started, the Fulcrum was the perfect fighter to fly. In fact thanks to its superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight, the MiG-29 was an exceptional fighter for close-in combat, even compared to aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
> 
> As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”
> 
> Moreover with a 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26 deg) the MiG-29 could out-turn them: in fact the Fulcrum retained an edge over its adversaries thanks to its unmatched agility which was reached combining an advanced aerodynamics with an old-fashioned mechanical control system."
> 
> Today, more modern variants exist. Again, you show total ignorance towards non-US planes that are actually superior to their US counterparts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to tell that to the Mig-29 Pilots that were bagged by the F-15 and SU-27?    The F-15 ended up within visual to a Mig-29.  Although the Mig-29 boasted of being more agile, the F-15 out agiled it and got the kill.  It appears the prowess of the F-15 was greatly misjudged.  Even though the Mig-29 has faced the F-15 on many occasions, the F-15 has always been the winner in those encounters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already wrote that Israeli claims and reality differ much. Of course, the guys praying to Netanyahu will not question their words but the shot F-35 shows exactly how Israel covers up what happened with stories of the bird. Air victories over poor air forces like the Iraqi mean nothing. We can see, what happens when a well trained pilot flies the Mig 29 in the report above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  You have gone from just trying to spread false propaganda to that of a ball faced liar.  You keep repeating that and your Pilots will start to believe it.  That's going to cost a lot of Comrade Pilots lives and make then more aggressive than they should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My airforce is the strongest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stronger than what?  I will admit that your Air Force is stronger than Luxemburgs.  So your Air Force is so strong you can afford to lose most of it's pilots and ground installations?  You keep posting these lies over and over again, Comrade.
Click to expand...

We Germans have the largest stealth air fleet on the globe. Our airforce is that stealthy, it is not even there. How do you want to fight our airforce when it isn´t there?

German airforce is better off with colorful balloons...


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> India has declined buying the Mig-35 which is an updated Mig-29.  Russia promised a whole huge list of improvements but in the end, it's just a reengined version with almost no other updates.  Going to fly around with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on it.


Yeah it's funny the way they present upgraded versions of aircraft that are decades old as a new model. SU-27 -> SU-35, MIG-25 -> MIG-31, MIG-29 -> MIG-35, etc. just update the avionics a bit, maybe add a new engine and hey that aircraft designed in 1977 is now a new aircraft designed in 2006. Then you get pinheads like BluePeeter gushing about the glories of the new high-tech planes being produced by his heroes.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> India has declined buying the Mig-35 which is an updated Mig-29.  Russia promised a whole huge list of improvements but in the end, it's just a reengined version with almost no other updates.  Going to fly around with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it's funny the way they present upgraded versions of aircraft that are decades old as a new model. SU-27 -> SU-35, MIG-25 -> MIG-31, MIG-29 -> MIG-35, etc. just update the avionics a bit, maybe add a new engine and hey that aircraft designed in 1977 is now a new aircraft designed in 2006. Then you get pinheads like BluePeeter gushing about the glories of the new high-tech planes being produced by his heroes.
Click to expand...


The Mig-31 design dates back to the Mig-25 to the early 60s.  Here are a couple of pictures










Some  say that the F-15 is a copy of the 25 but the 25 stole from this bird






The A-5 is from the 50s.  It grew out of the XF-108 cancelled program.


----------



## Bleipriester

*+++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++*

The F-35 spies on foreign customers.

It flies, and it snoops: Norway’s pricey F-35s caught sending ‘sensitive data’ to US


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> *+++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++*
> 
> The F-35 spies on foreign customers.
> 
> It flies, and it snoops: Norway’s pricey F-35s caught sending ‘sensitive data’ to US



YEs, that's part of what the F-35 does.  And Norway trades intel with the US at high margin.  .  And you left out that the F-35 directs Gen 4 fighters to intercept Russians that are doing something really stupid.  Danged one more thing that a F-35 does better than the others.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *+++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++*
> 
> The F-35 spies on foreign customers.
> 
> It flies, and it snoops: Norway’s pricey F-35s caught sending ‘sensitive data’ to US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEs, that's part of what the F-35 does.  And Norway trades intel with the US at high margin.  .  And you left out that the F-35 directs Gen 4 fighters to intercept Russians that are doing something really stupid.  Danged one more thing that a F-35 does better than the others.
Click to expand...

That´s not the point. Here it comes:

_"“Due to national considerations, there is a need for a filter where the user nations can exclude sensitive data from the data stream that is shared by the system with the manufacturer Lockheed Martin,”_ said Defense Ministry senior consultant Lars Gjemble, as cited by Norway’s ABC Nyheter."


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *+++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++*
> 
> The F-35 spies on foreign customers.
> 
> It flies, and it snoops: Norway’s pricey F-35s caught sending ‘sensitive data’ to US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEs, that's part of what the F-35 does.  And Norway trades intel with the US at high margin.  .  And you left out that the F-35 directs Gen 4 fighters to intercept Russians that are doing something really stupid.  Danged one more thing that a F-35 does better than the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That´s not the point. Here it comes:
> 
> _"“Due to national considerations, there is a need for a filter where the user nations can exclude sensitive data from the data stream that is shared by the system with the manufacturer Lockheed Martin,”_ said Defense Ministry senior consultant Lars Gjemble, as cited by Norway’s ABC Nyheter."
Click to expand...


Next you are going to sya that it doesn't have a drink holder or ashtray.


----------



## RWNJ

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

We should have went with a higher number of cheaper, less capable fighters. After all, quantity is it's own quality.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *+++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++*
> 
> The F-35 spies on foreign customers.
> 
> It flies, and it snoops: Norway’s pricey F-35s caught sending ‘sensitive data’ to US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEs, that's part of what the F-35 does.  And Norway trades intel with the US at high margin.  .  And you left out that the F-35 directs Gen 4 fighters to intercept Russians that are doing something really stupid.  Danged one more thing that a F-35 does better than the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That´s not the point. Here it comes:
> 
> _"“Due to national considerations, there is a need for a filter where the user nations can exclude sensitive data from the data stream that is shared by the system with the manufacturer Lockheed Martin,”_ said Defense Ministry senior consultant Lars Gjemble, as cited by Norway’s ABC Nyheter."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next you are going to sya that it doesn't have a drink holder or ashtray.
Click to expand...

It doesn´t? Now that´s a critical flaw!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RWNJ said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have went with a higher number of cheaper, less capable fighters. After all, quantity is it's own quality.
Click to expand...


LEt's discuss this.  What cheaper, less capable fighter?  Considering a full tilt F-16 costs nearly as much as the next batch of F-35s then what fighter should we have chosen?  Certainly not the F-18 since it has less capability for performance than even the F-16 although the F18 does have quite a few of the really neat toys.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *+++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++ PROPAGANDA +++ FAKE NEWS +++ ANTI-AMERICAN AGITPROP +++*
> 
> The F-35 spies on foreign customers.
> 
> It flies, and it snoops: Norway’s pricey F-35s caught sending ‘sensitive data’ to US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEs, that's part of what the F-35 does.  And Norway trades intel with the US at high margin.  .  And you left out that the F-35 directs Gen 4 fighters to intercept Russians that are doing something really stupid.  Danged one more thing that a F-35 does better than the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That´s not the point. Here it comes:
> 
> _"“Due to national considerations, there is a need for a filter where the user nations can exclude sensitive data from the data stream that is shared by the system with the manufacturer Lockheed Martin,”_ said Defense Ministry senior consultant Lars Gjemble, as cited by Norway’s ABC Nyheter."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next you are going to sya that it doesn't have a drink holder or ashtray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn´t? Now that´s a critical flaw!
Click to expand...


And I hear the inflight movie sucks.


----------



## RWNJ

Daryl Hunt said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have went with a higher number of cheaper, less capable fighters. After all, quantity is it's own quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEt's discuss this.  What cheaper, less capable fighter?  Considering a full tilt F-16 costs nearly as much as the next batch of F-35s then what fighter should we have chosen?  Certainly not the F-18 since it has less capability for performance than even the F-16 although the F18 does have quite a few of the really neat toys.
Click to expand...

The most important things for a fighter jet are speed and maneuverability. They really don't need all the fancy bells and whistles. They need a decent electronics warfare package and targeting capability. Other than that, the most important thing is the skill of the pilot. Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's? They don't need stealth, since it really doesn't give a pilot the edge it used to. So we could make capable fighters for a lot less than an F-35.


----------



## Bleipriester

RWNJ said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have went with a higher number of cheaper, less capable fighters. After all, quantity is it's own quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEt's discuss this.  What cheaper, less capable fighter?  Considering a full tilt F-16 costs nearly as much as the next batch of F-35s then what fighter should we have chosen?  Certainly not the F-18 since it has less capability for performance than even the F-16 although the F18 does have quite a few of the really neat toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most important things for a fighter jet are speed and maneuverability. They really don't need all the fancy bells and whistles. They need a decent electronics warfare package and targeting capability. Other than that, the most important thing is the skill of the pilot. Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's? They don't need stealth, since it really doesn't give a pilot the edge it used to. So we could make capable fighters for a lot less than an F-35.
Click to expand...

Hunt is a good representative of the USAF. A plane must be absolutely invisible and invincible. At all costs.


----------



## DrainBamage

RWNJ said:


> The most important things for a fighter jet are speed and maneuverability.


Well no, they aren't.

Go look at stats on shoot-downs in air combat in the modern era, they happen at transonic speeds using BVR missiles. In other words, the fighter who gets first shot (because they got first look) is the advantage, there are very few examples of WW2 style furballs in the modern era.

Is the F-35 faster or more maneuverable than F-15s and F-15s? Nope. Yet what happened when they were fighting in Red Flag, F-35 had a 20-1 kill ratio. The 4th gen planes never saw the stealth fighters, and didn't know there were being targeted until the AMRAAM coming up their pipe went active seconds before impact. They got dominated.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Hunt is a good representative of the USAF. A plane must be absolutely invisible and invincible. At all costs.


Hey what a treat, a comment on what is invincible from the moron who declared the MIG-29 is invincible, yeah that plane that has been consistently shot down by just about every peer adversary. Thanks Mr. Expert.


----------



## WorldWatcher

RWNJ said:


> Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's?




No I don't.  Mind linking to a source which describes the incident.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt is a good representative of the USAF. A plane must be absolutely invisible and invincible. At all costs.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey what a treat, a comment on what is invincible from the moron who declared the MIG-29 is invincible, yeah that plane that has been consistently shot down by just about every peer adversary. Thanks Mr. Expert.
Click to expand...

SlainBrain, I never claimed that. Your repeated lies indicate that you are not aware of the fact that people can read here and see how you make a fool out of yourself.

There are three Mig 29 air victories in Iraq by the way, of which one was a "bird strike". Three Mig 29 were shot down. This is a 1:1 ratio despite the following facts:
- Iraqi airforce not trained as well as American
- Iraqi equipment not as advanced as American, no AWACS, no other advanced aircraft, ect
- Export Mig 29 not as good as Russian

Air engagements of the Gulf War - Wikipedia


----------



## Daryl Hunt

RWNJ said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have went with a higher number of cheaper, less capable fighters. After all, quantity is it's own quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEt's discuss this.  What cheaper, less capable fighter?  Considering a full tilt F-16 costs nearly as much as the next batch of F-35s then what fighter should we have chosen?  Certainly not the F-18 since it has less capability for performance than even the F-16 although the F18 does have quite a few of the really neat toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most important things for a fighter jet are speed and maneuverability. They really don't need all the fancy bells and whistles. They need a decent electronics warfare package and targeting capability. Other than that, the most important thing is the skill of the pilot. Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's? They don't need stealth, since it really doesn't give a pilot the edge it used to. So we could make capable fighters for a lot less than an F-35.
Click to expand...


Yes, someone here made the claim that one F-4 took out 2 F-18s.  It may not have happened.  I would require a decent cite before I accept that.

Second, the F-18 is limited to 7 gees when hosting weapons.  Originally, the F-4 had a 12G rating  but no pilot could ever sustain that.  But it could sustain 9 gees in the first few seconds of a turn.  The problem is, in the waning days of the F-4 it was reduced to 6 gees.  The F-4 started to be limited starting in the late 80s.  It got tired after almost 30 years of hard living.  But in a real world, the Avionics of the F-18 would smoke any F-4 even in the 90s.

Now, what fighter would you suggest.  Obviously it's going to be a light fighter.  A Heavy costs over 100 mil.  The F-15 in it's most recent form costs more than 110 mil a copy.  The F-16 fully equipped to US standards costs at least 80 mil.  Even then, the F-35 and F-22 use them as cannon fodder.  

We could look at the Russian Fighters.  The Mig-35 is just an upgraded Mig-29 which has lost more battles than it's won in actual combat.  The SU-35 is an upgraded SU-27 which is a decent fighter.  I actually rate the SU-30 better than the SU-35 just because of the numbers in service.  The added thrust vectoring is very impressive at an air show but in actual combat, if you slow down enough to use it then you are dead, dead, dead.The SU-35 uses manual controlled thrust vectoring.  Us it wrong and things get very hairy very quickly.  The only fighter with it where thrust vectoring actually works in combat is the automatic controlled F-22.  As it stands now, the Russian Fighters are trying to catch up but they don't really have the capability.  The problem is, the technology to compete or surpass the US costs money, lots of money.  And decades.  So I think we need to look at, maybe, the French.

The Rafale may be the bird you are talking about.  But at 93 (USD) a copy, it's out of reach for most smaller air forces.

The F-18, once you deck it out, reaches close to 90 mil.  But it's a carrier bird.  Alabi, the best of them but carrier birds are heavy and really can't go up against first class land fighters.  

The F-16 is also pushing 90 mil when decked out.  

What drives up costs isn't the bird itself, it's the avionics.  Even then, that avionics is a generation behind the F-35.  Probably the best 4 gen fighter right now is the F15E and versions.  It has the good stuff, does what you want but is more than 110 mil a copy.  Right now, the F-35 avionics is even a half gen better than the F-22.  Yes, Stealth will become less affective one day.  But for the next 10 or more years, it's still king and that leaves the F-35 at 85 to 95 mil a copy the best buy.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have went with a higher number of cheaper, less capable fighters. After all, quantity is it's own quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEt's discuss this.  What cheaper, less capable fighter?  Considering a full tilt F-16 costs nearly as much as the next batch of F-35s then what fighter should we have chosen?  Certainly not the F-18 since it has less capability for performance than even the F-16 although the F18 does have quite a few of the really neat toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most important things for a fighter jet are speed and maneuverability. They really don't need all the fancy bells and whistles. They need a decent electronics warfare package and targeting capability. Other than that, the most important thing is the skill of the pilot. Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's? They don't need stealth, since it really doesn't give a pilot the edge it used to. So we could make capable fighters for a lot less than an F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt is a good representative of the USAF. A plane must be absolutely invisible and invincible. At all costs.
Click to expand...


Yes, cost.  Except the costs on other 4++ fighters have exceed the cost of the F-35A.  This is why the F-35A is the most sought after western fighter.  Next would come the F-15E but the cost keeps it out of smaller Air Forces.


----------



## Muhammed

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

The US should have skipped the F-35 and F-22 to put more research into the next class of fighter/bombers.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Muhammed said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US should have skipped the F-35 and F-22 to put more research into the next class of fighter/bombers.
Click to expand...


Baby steps.  The B-2 first flew almost 30 years ago.  Nothing can match it for at least the next decade.  The F-22 first flew 20 years ago and nothing can match it for at least another decade.  The F-35 first flew 11 years ago.  We asked the F-35 to do things that should have been impossible yet it is doing them today.  But it was a long hard battle to get it there.

The US is working on the next gen (6) fighter right now.  Funny, there is a good chance it will look similar to the XF-23.  The B-21 will really be still a 5th gen but the 6th gen is on the drawing boards.  You have to ring out the problems of each gen aircraft.  You can't just skip ahead.  Russia can't build a real 5th gen so they make the claim they are working on a 6th gen.  Sort of like, I am now working on my second Million, I gave up on my first million.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> 
> 
> We should have went with a higher number of cheaper, less capable fighters. After all, quantity is it's own quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEt's discuss this.  What cheaper, less capable fighter?  Considering a full tilt F-16 costs nearly as much as the next batch of F-35s then what fighter should we have chosen?  Certainly not the F-18 since it has less capability for performance than even the F-16 although the F18 does have quite a few of the really neat toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most important things for a fighter jet are speed and maneuverability. They really don't need all the fancy bells and whistles. They need a decent electronics warfare package and targeting capability. Other than that, the most important thing is the skill of the pilot. Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's? They don't need stealth, since it really doesn't give a pilot the edge it used to. So we could make capable fighters for a lot less than an F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt is a good representative of the USAF. A plane must be absolutely invisible and invincible. At all costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, cost.  Except the costs on other 4++ fighters have exceed the cost of the F-35A.  This is why the F-35A is the most sought after western fighter.  Next would come the F-15E but the cost keeps it out of smaller Air Forces.
Click to expand...

It is largely overrated. Because it is American it must be good. But it isn´t. Cheaper planes can do better.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US should have skipped the F-35 and F-22 to put more research into the next class of fighter/bombers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby steps.  The B-2 first flew almost 30 years ago.  Nothing can match it for at least the next decade.  The F-22 first flew 20 years ago and nothing can match it for at least another decade.  The F-35 first flew 11 years ago.  We asked the F-35 to do things that should have been impossible yet it is doing them today.  But it was a long hard battle to get it there.
> 
> The US is working on the next gen (6) fighter right now.  Funny, there is a good chance it will look similar to the XF-23.  The B-21 will really be still a 5th gen but the 6th gen is on the drawing boards.  You have to ring out the problems of each gen aircraft.  You can't just skip ahead.  Russia can't build a real 5th gen so they make the claim they are working on a 6th gen.  Sort of like, I am now working on my second Million, I gave up on my first million.
Click to expand...

You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.







1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> SlainBrain, I never claimed that. Your repeated lies indicate that you are not aware of the fact that people can read here and see how you make a fool out of yourself.


Hah hah it's hilarious watching you dance around after you realize you've said something really stupid, for the record here is what you said:

"The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat."

The quoted post is here:


Bleipriester said:


> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.



Your "superior fighter" has done poorly against every opposing fighter it has faced unless the opponent happened to have a propeller. 




Bleipriester said:


> There are three Mig 29 air victories in Iraq by the way, of which one was a "bird strike". Three Mig 29 were shot down. This is a 1:1 ratio


Your own link doesn't agree, and you sure have lots of excuses as to why your "invincible" fighter gets shot down a lot.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.


Of course missiles can down stealth planes, nobody is claiming they are invincible like you did with MIG-29. You're making a really feeble attempt at a straw man argument here. All stealth does is reduce the range at which the aircraft can be detected, tracked, and targeted, giving advantages to the stealthier aircraft in penetrating contested airspace and getting first look first shot in air combat.

That F-117 was shot down after flying the same route over and over, they were able to put their assets where they needed and detect it at close range when it opened it's bomb bay doors, launching missiles from only eight miles away.

F-117 was a first generation stealth plane designed in the 70s, it's situational awareness was horrible (didn't even have a radar) all it was designed to do was flying a fixed route and drop two bombs. An F-35 or F-22 flying that same mission would have easily detected those AA assets and either jammed them, avoided flying near them, or dropped an SDB right on their head.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> SlainBrain, I never claimed that. Your repeated lies indicate that you are not aware of the fact that people can read here and see how you make a fool out of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah hah it's hilarious watching you dance around after you realize you've said something really stupid, for the record here is what you said:
> 
> "The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat."
> 
> The quoted post is here:
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. The Mig 29 is a superior fighter. It is still the most maneuverable jet and is almost invincible in close air combat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "superior fighter" has done poorly against every opposing fighter it has faced unless the opponent happened to have a propeller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are three Mig 29 air victories in Iraq by the way, of which one was a "bird strike". Three Mig 29 were shot down. This is a 1:1 ratio
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own link doesn't agree, and you sure have lots of excuses as to why your "invincible" fighter gets shot down a lot.
Click to expand...

Where does it say it is invincible, PainBrain?


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course missiles can down stealth planes, nobody is claiming they are invincible like you did with MIG-29. You're making a really feeble attempt at a straw man argument here. All stealth does is reduce the range at which the aircraft can be detected, tracked, and targeted, giving advantages to the stealthier aircraft in penetrating contested airspace and getting first look first shot in air combat.
> 
> That F-117 was shot down after flying the same route over and over, they were able to put their assets where they needed and detect it at close range when it opened it's bomb bay doors, launching missiles from only eight miles away.
> 
> F-117 was a first generation stealth plane designed in the 70s, it's situational awareness was horrible (didn't even have a radar) all it was designed to do was flying a fixed route and drop two bombs. An F-35 or F-22 flying that same mission would have easily detected those AA assets and either jammed them, avoided flying near them, or dropped an SDB right on their head.
Click to expand...

The 117 did not have radar but other detection tools. The rest of your bullshit is bullshit.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Where does it say it is invincible, PainBrain?


Learn to read.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> The 117 did not have radar but other detection tools. The rest of your bullshit is bullshit.


You call it bullshit because (yet again) it sinks whatever idiotic point you're trying to make, the easiest response when you've got nothing is to wave your hand and cry "bullshit" instead of demonstrating the intellectual depth required to back up your post.

F-117 had a FLIR and DLIR to target it's weapons, can you tell me what type of radar warning receiver it had? You're the one talking about it's "other detection tools" and you're the one with a long history of being caught talking out of your ass, so I invite you to educate me on the RWR of an F-117.


----------



## RWNJ

WorldWatcher said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't.  Mind linking to a source which describes the incident.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Someone mentioned it on this thread, I believe. Not sure if it's true or not. If it was a close-in dogfight, I can see it happening.


----------



## WorldWatcher

RWNJ said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how that F-4 took out two F-18's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't.  Mind linking to a source which describes the incident.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone mentioned it on this thread, I believe. Not sure if it's true or not. If it was a close-in dogfight, I can see it happening.
Click to expand...



I found it it was here -->> F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

Nothing credible just a "back in the day" story.



If it was a close in dogfight I don't see it happening.  When I was on the Midway we flew F-4's.  They proved if you added enough thrust you could make a brick fly.  



>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US should have skipped the F-35 and F-22 to put more research into the next class of fighter/bombers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby steps.  The B-2 first flew almost 30 years ago.  Nothing can match it for at least the next decade.  The F-22 first flew 20 years ago and nothing can match it for at least another decade.  The F-35 first flew 11 years ago.  We asked the F-35 to do things that should have been impossible yet it is doing them today.  But it was a long hard battle to get it there.
> 
> The US is working on the next gen (6) fighter right now.  Funny, there is a good chance it will look similar to the XF-23.  The B-21 will really be still a 5th gen but the 6th gen is on the drawing boards.  You have to ring out the problems of each gen aircraft.  You can't just skip ahead.  Russia can't build a real 5th gen so they make the claim they are working on a 6th gen.  Sort of like, I am now working on my second Million, I gave up on my first million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Normally, they don't throw up missiles like a FAC blanket.  But they did that day.  They knew it was there but couldn't lock on it so they used the multi barreled shotgun approach.  Doing this makes you run out of SA missiles very quickly.  USAF learned from this and went on to use the F-117 over a much more dense SA defense with zero losses to the F-117.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I bet you would even subsribe to the flat earth if you thought it helped your employer, Putin,.  You should move this to "Conspiracy Theory".


----------



## DrainBamage

Russia's MiG-29 Fulcrum: A Super Fighter or Super Failure?

Setting the tune of things to come, in the Fulcrum’s first confirmed aerial combat, two Syrian MiG-29 were shot down by Israeli F-15s in 1989. There are reports Israeli fighters shot down another two Syrian MiG-29s in 2001.

During the Gulf War, five Iraqi MiG-29s were shot down by American F-15s. However, a Fulcrum did successfully hit an F-111 and a B-52 bomber with missiles, though both aircraft managed to return to base.

Fulcrums also took a beating in the Ethiopian–Eritrean border conflict of the late 1990s, which featured more evenly matched opponents. Russian mercenaries flew alongside Ethiopian pilots, while Ukrainians supported the Eritrean Air Force. In all, four Eritrean MiG-29s were shot down by Ethiopian Su-27s. In exchange, the Eritrean Fulcrums shot down a Su-25, a MiG-21 and an unidentified fighter (possibly a MiG-23). Over multiple engagements, Flankers and Fulcrums exchanged over two-dozen R-27 missiles at long range for only a single hit. Instead, most of the victories were scored in short-range dogfights using AA-11 missiles.

Sixteen MiG-29s of the Serbian Air Force opposed NATO’s bombing campaign over Kosovo in 1999. Deployed at medium altitude, where they were exposed to hostile radar, five were shot down by F-15s and F-16s without scoring any victories in return.

This would be the invincible plane of the village idiot.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 117 did not have radar but other detection tools. The rest of your bullshit is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> You call it bullshit because (yet again) it sinks whatever idiotic point you're trying to make, the easiest response when you've got nothing is to wave your hand and cry "bullshit" instead of demonstrating the intellectual depth required to back up your post.
> 
> F-117 had a FLIR and DLIR to target it's weapons, can you tell me what type of radar warning receiver it had? You're the one talking about it's "other detection tools" and you're the one with a long history of being caught talking out of your ass, so I invite you to educate me on the RWR of an F-117.
Click to expand...

You unpatriotically play down the F-117 to keep up your silly denials, PainBrain.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US should have skipped the F-35 and F-22 to put more research into the next class of fighter/bombers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby steps.  The B-2 first flew almost 30 years ago.  Nothing can match it for at least the next decade.  The F-22 first flew 20 years ago and nothing can match it for at least another decade.  The F-35 first flew 11 years ago.  We asked the F-35 to do things that should have been impossible yet it is doing them today.  But it was a long hard battle to get it there.
> 
> The US is working on the next gen (6) fighter right now.  Funny, there is a good chance it will look similar to the XF-23.  The B-21 will really be still a 5th gen but the 6th gen is on the drawing boards.  You have to ring out the problems of each gen aircraft.  You can't just skip ahead.  Russia can't build a real 5th gen so they make the claim they are working on a 6th gen.  Sort of like, I am now working on my second Million, I gave up on my first million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normally, they don't throw up missiles like a FAC blanket.  But they did that day.  They knew it was there but couldn't lock on it so they used the multi barreled shotgun approach.  Doing this makes you run out of SA missiles very quickly.  USAF learned from this and went on to use the F-117 over a much more dense SA defense with zero losses to the F-117.
> 
> Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I bet you would even subsribe to the flat earth if you thought it helped your employer, Putin,.  You should move this to "Conspiracy Theory".
Click to expand...

Two missiles. Both were on course but one simply didn´t detonate. Your employer, Washington Bob, should have told you that people can open the links that I post.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> 
> 
> The US should have skipped the F-35 and F-22 to put more research into the next class of fighter/bombers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby steps.  The B-2 first flew almost 30 years ago.  Nothing can match it for at least the next decade.  The F-22 first flew 20 years ago and nothing can match it for at least another decade.  The F-35 first flew 11 years ago.  We asked the F-35 to do things that should have been impossible yet it is doing them today.  But it was a long hard battle to get it there.
> 
> The US is working on the next gen (6) fighter right now.  Funny, there is a good chance it will look similar to the XF-23.  The B-21 will really be still a 5th gen but the 6th gen is on the drawing boards.  You have to ring out the problems of each gen aircraft.  You can't just skip ahead.  Russia can't build a real 5th gen so they make the claim they are working on a 6th gen.  Sort of like, I am now working on my second Million, I gave up on my first million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normally, they don't throw up missiles like a FAC blanket.  But they did that day.  They knew it was there but couldn't lock on it so they used the multi barreled shotgun approach.  Doing this makes you run out of SA missiles very quickly.  USAF learned from this and went on to use the F-117 over a much more dense SA defense with zero losses to the F-117.
> 
> Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I bet you would even subsribe to the flat earth if you thought it helped your employer, Putin,.  You should move this to "Conspiracy Theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two missiles. Both were on course but one simply didn´t detonate. Your employer, Washington Bob, should have told you that people can open the links that I post.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at your own cite.

They intercepted classified communications that said where and when.  The prepositioned their radar sites for the best detection.  Using low frequency (those radar operators knew their stuff) they use the radar to detect one F-117 with it's doors open.  Even the F-22 pops up on radar the second or two that his weapon bay doors are open.  The radar operators know just how long they could keep their radar on to avoid detection.  Again, these weren't no pilgrims.  The fired "Several Missiles".  Two were close enough to the target to detonate but only one did.  One was enough.  What part of "Several" are you having trouble with.  USAF didn't stop using the F-117 after that.  They adjusted after going over the scenerio and made the appropriate mission changes.  No others were lost.  The loss of the bird was not from the F-117, but from underestimating the enemy.  Much like you are doing now.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US should have skipped the F-35 and F-22 to put more research into the next class of fighter/bombers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby steps.  The B-2 first flew almost 30 years ago.  Nothing can match it for at least the next decade.  The F-22 first flew 20 years ago and nothing can match it for at least another decade.  The F-35 first flew 11 years ago.  We asked the F-35 to do things that should have been impossible yet it is doing them today.  But it was a long hard battle to get it there.
> 
> The US is working on the next gen (6) fighter right now.  Funny, there is a good chance it will look similar to the XF-23.  The B-21 will really be still a 5th gen but the 6th gen is on the drawing boards.  You have to ring out the problems of each gen aircraft.  You can't just skip ahead.  Russia can't build a real 5th gen so they make the claim they are working on a 6th gen.  Sort of like, I am now working on my second Million, I gave up on my first million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normally, they don't throw up missiles like a FAC blanket.  But they did that day.  They knew it was there but couldn't lock on it so they used the multi barreled shotgun approach.  Doing this makes you run out of SA missiles very quickly.  USAF learned from this and went on to use the F-117 over a much more dense SA defense with zero losses to the F-117.
> 
> Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I bet you would even subsribe to the flat earth if you thought it helped your employer, Putin,.  You should move this to "Conspiracy Theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two missiles. Both were on course but one simply didn´t detonate. Your employer, Washington Bob, should have told you that people can open the links that I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at your own cite.
> 
> They intercepted classified communications that said where and when.  The prepositioned their radar sites for the best detection.  Using low frequency (those radar operators knew their stuff) they use the radar to detect one F-117 with it's doors open.  Even the F-22 pops up on radar the second or two that his weapon bay doors are open.  The radar operators know just how long they could keep their radar on to avoid detection.  Again, these weren't no pilgrims.  The fired "Several Missiles".  Two were close enough to the target to detonate but only one did.  One was enough.  What part of "Several" are you having trouble with.  USAF didn't stop using the F-117 after that.  They adjusted after going over the scenerio and made the appropriate mission changes.  No others were lost.  The loss of the bird was not from the F-117, but from underestimating the enemy.  Much like you are doing now.
Click to expand...

Again you are alleging something that is not there. Several is two here, as the article describes:

"He observed the two missiles punch through the low cloud cover and head straight for his aircraft. The first passed over him, close enough to cause buffeting, but did not detonate. The second missile detonated, causing significant damage to the aircraft and causing it to tumble, out of control."

1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia

You really need to become serious in discussions. Discussions with you impossible because you are always in denial of the given facts.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby steps.  The B-2 first flew almost 30 years ago.  Nothing can match it for at least the next decade.  The F-22 first flew 20 years ago and nothing can match it for at least another decade.  The F-35 first flew 11 years ago.  We asked the F-35 to do things that should have been impossible yet it is doing them today.  But it was a long hard battle to get it there.
> 
> The US is working on the next gen (6) fighter right now.  Funny, there is a good chance it will look similar to the XF-23.  The B-21 will really be still a 5th gen but the 6th gen is on the drawing boards.  You have to ring out the problems of each gen aircraft.  You can't just skip ahead.  Russia can't build a real 5th gen so they make the claim they are working on a 6th gen.  Sort of like, I am now working on my second Million, I gave up on my first million.
> 
> 
> 
> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normally, they don't throw up missiles like a FAC blanket.  But they did that day.  They knew it was there but couldn't lock on it so they used the multi barreled shotgun approach.  Doing this makes you run out of SA missiles very quickly.  USAF learned from this and went on to use the F-117 over a much more dense SA defense with zero losses to the F-117.
> 
> Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I bet you would even subsribe to the flat earth if you thought it helped your employer, Putin,.  You should move this to "Conspiracy Theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two missiles. Both were on course but one simply didn´t detonate. Your employer, Washington Bob, should have told you that people can open the links that I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at your own cite.
> 
> They intercepted classified communications that said where and when.  The prepositioned their radar sites for the best detection.  Using low frequency (those radar operators knew their stuff) they use the radar to detect one F-117 with it's doors open.  Even the F-22 pops up on radar the second or two that his weapon bay doors are open.  The radar operators know just how long they could keep their radar on to avoid detection.  Again, these weren't no pilgrims.  The fired "Several Missiles".  Two were close enough to the target to detonate but only one did.  One was enough.  What part of "Several" are you having trouble with.  USAF didn't stop using the F-117 after that.  They adjusted after going over the scenerio and made the appropriate mission changes.  No others were lost.  The loss of the bird was not from the F-117, but from underestimating the enemy.  Much like you are doing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are alleging something that is not there. Several is two here, as the article describes:
> 
> "He observed the two missiles punch through the low cloud cover and head straight for his aircraft. The first passed over him, close enough to cause buffeting, but did not detonate. The second missile detonated, causing significant damage to the aircraft and causing it to tumble, out of control."
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> You really need to become serious in discussions. Discussions with you impossible because you are always in denial of the given facts.
Click to expand...


This is how the F-117A was shot down in Serbia by a SA-3 (S-75) Goa SAM in 1999

Several is more than a couple.  But I won't argue that with you.  The fact is, they were using an antiquated long range radar that isn't used today.  While they got a sense he was there at 31 miles, they got a short lock at about 8 miles and fired.  They used a combination of radar, laser and eyeballs to make the hit.  

What made it possible was the F-117 was wet.  That enabled them to detect him.   They waited until he opened his bomb doors and fired.  What we learned from this is to NEVER expect a decent stealth in the rain.  While a 4th gen is harder to see in the rain, the fifth gen actually degrades it stealth a bit.  Hence the BS claim that the F-35 can't fly in the rain.  It can but you don't go into a heavily contested area in the rain.  Same goes for the F-22.  Instead, you send in your 4th gen F-15/16 combo that actually benefits from the rain.  

We learned that we can't fly the same mission parameters over and over.  It had to be changed.  They flew the F-117 like they did the F-105s during vietnam.  WE lost a lot of Thuds and Pilots that way.  And the Buffs were flown the same way in Vietnam.  When you notice this, you move your radar and put a narrow beam to that area.  A Wide Beam like is normally used is less sensitive.  Somehow, they had the entire flight parameters by eavesdropping on broadcasts for the F-117.  USAF made a number of errors that they should not have made.  Yes, the Slavs did a fantastic job but they were helped.

About the doors.  The Doors on that particular bird stayed open a full 8 seconds.  When the doors are open, you aren't stealthy at that point.  They got the lock and went for it and got it.  Today, the weapons bay doors on both the F-35 and F-22 are open less than a second.  Not long enough for you to obtain a lock.

Like everything else, it's a learning curve.  The F-117 was the beginning of the learning curve.  The Bird was fantastic but the serious of comedic errors that were done were the cause of the shoot down.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being delusional again. Ancient missiles can down stealth planes. At least one F-117 was downed by a Soviet made 1961 S-125.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normally, they don't throw up missiles like a FAC blanket.  But they did that day.  They knew it was there but couldn't lock on it so they used the multi barreled shotgun approach.  Doing this makes you run out of SA missiles very quickly.  USAF learned from this and went on to use the F-117 over a much more dense SA defense with zero losses to the F-117.
> 
> Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I bet you would even subsribe to the flat earth if you thought it helped your employer, Putin,.  You should move this to "Conspiracy Theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two missiles. Both were on course but one simply didn´t detonate. Your employer, Washington Bob, should have told you that people can open the links that I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at your own cite.
> 
> They intercepted classified communications that said where and when.  The prepositioned their radar sites for the best detection.  Using low frequency (those radar operators knew their stuff) they use the radar to detect one F-117 with it's doors open.  Even the F-22 pops up on radar the second or two that his weapon bay doors are open.  The radar operators know just how long they could keep their radar on to avoid detection.  Again, these weren't no pilgrims.  The fired "Several Missiles".  Two were close enough to the target to detonate but only one did.  One was enough.  What part of "Several" are you having trouble with.  USAF didn't stop using the F-117 after that.  They adjusted after going over the scenerio and made the appropriate mission changes.  No others were lost.  The loss of the bird was not from the F-117, but from underestimating the enemy.  Much like you are doing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are alleging something that is not there. Several is two here, as the article describes:
> 
> "He observed the two missiles punch through the low cloud cover and head straight for his aircraft. The first passed over him, close enough to cause buffeting, but did not detonate. The second missile detonated, causing significant damage to the aircraft and causing it to tumble, out of control."
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> You really need to become serious in discussions. Discussions with you impossible because you are always in denial of the given facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how the F-117A was shot down in Serbia by a SA-3 (S-75) Goa SAM in 1999
> 
> Several is more than a couple.  But I won't argue that with you.  The fact is, they were using an antiquated long range radar that isn't used today.  While they got a sense he was there at 31 miles, they got a short lock at about 8 miles and fired.  They used a combination of radar, laser and eyeballs to make the hit.
> 
> What made it possible was the F-117 was wet.  That enabled them to detect him.   They waited until he opened his bomb doors and fired.  What we learned from this is to NEVER expect a decent stealth in the rain.  While a 4th gen is harder to see in the rain, the fifth gen actually degrades it stealth a bit.  Hence the BS claim that the F-35 can't fly in the rain.  It can but you don't go into a heavily contested area in the rain.  Same goes for the F-22.  Instead, you send in your 4th gen F-15/16 combo that actually benefits from the rain.
> 
> We learned that we can't fly the same mission parameters over and over.  It had to be changed.  They flew the F-117 like they did the F-105s during vietnam.  WE lost a lot of Thuds and Pilots that way.  And the Buffs were flown the same way in Vietnam.  When you notice this, you move your radar and put a narrow beam to that area.  A Wide Beam like is normally used is less sensitive.  Somehow, they had the entire flight parameters by eavesdropping on broadcasts for the F-117.  USAF made a number of errors that they should not have made.  Yes, the Slavs did a fantastic job but they were helped.
> 
> About the doors.  The Doors on that particular bird stayed open a full 8 seconds.  When the doors are open, you aren't stealthy at that point.  They got the lock and went for it and got it.  Today, the weapons bay doors on both the F-35 and F-22 are open less than a second.  Not long enough for you to obtain a lock.
> 
> Like everything else, it's a learning curve.  The F-117 was the beginning of the learning curve.  The Bird was fantastic but the serious of comedic errors that were done were the cause of the shoot down.
Click to expand...

www.birdstrikes.com is not a reliable source when it comes to issues with US aircraft.


"In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Dani said the F-117 was detected and shot down during a moonless night — just three days into the war — by a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile.

"We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.

It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.


"Long before the 1999 war, I took keen interest in the stealth fighter and on how it could be detected," said Dani, who has been hailed in Serbia as a war hero. "And I concluded that there are no invisible aircraft, but only less visible."


The Serb SAMs remained a potent threat throughout the conflict, forcing attacking warplanes to altitudes above 15,000 feet, where they were safe from surface-to-air missiles but far less effective in a ground attack role.

NATO won the war in June 1999, after President Slobodan Milosevic decided to withdraw his largely intact army from Kosovo, following the destruction of numerous government buildings, bridges and other infrastructure targets throughout Serbia."

USATODAY.com - Serb discusses 1999 downing of stealth


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> You unpatriotically play down the F-117 to keep up your silly denials, PainBrain.


Nope. I explained exactly why it was shot down. 

As has been proven by your posting history, the easiest verification there is would be simply believe the opposite of what you post. You've been caught in so many ridiculous lies it's a kneejerk reaction to assume whatever is coming from you is either something you made up (MIG-29 almost invincible) or some conspiracy tidbit that you're gullible to believe in.

Tell us more about all those invincible MIG-29s getting shot down in the Ethiopia war, or maybe some more details about Iran's stealth plane that turned out to be an RC model. "There is a video of it flying" hah you fucking moron.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You unpatriotically play down the F-117 to keep up your silly denials, PainBrain.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I explained exactly why it was shot down.
> 
> As has been proven by your posting history, the easiest verification there is would be simply believe the opposite of what you post. You've been caught in so many ridiculous lies it's a kneejerk reaction to assume whatever is coming from you is either something you made up (MIG-29 almost invincible) or some conspiracy tidbit that you're gullible to believe in.
> 
> Tell us more about all those invincible MIG-29s getting shot down in the Ethiopia war, or maybe some more details about Iran's stealth plane that turned out to be an RC model. "There is a video of it flying" hah you fucking moron.
Click to expand...

Shut the fuck up, liar.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normally, they don't throw up missiles like a FAC blanket.  But they did that day.  They knew it was there but couldn't lock on it so they used the multi barreled shotgun approach.  Doing this makes you run out of SA missiles very quickly.  USAF learned from this and went on to use the F-117 over a much more dense SA defense with zero losses to the F-117.
> 
> Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I bet you would even subsribe to the flat earth if you thought it helped your employer, Putin,.  You should move this to "Conspiracy Theory".
> 
> 
> 
> Two missiles. Both were on course but one simply didn´t detonate. Your employer, Washington Bob, should have told you that people can open the links that I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at your own cite.
> 
> They intercepted classified communications that said where and when.  The prepositioned their radar sites for the best detection.  Using low frequency (those radar operators knew their stuff) they use the radar to detect one F-117 with it's doors open.  Even the F-22 pops up on radar the second or two that his weapon bay doors are open.  The radar operators know just how long they could keep their radar on to avoid detection.  Again, these weren't no pilgrims.  The fired "Several Missiles".  Two were close enough to the target to detonate but only one did.  One was enough.  What part of "Several" are you having trouble with.  USAF didn't stop using the F-117 after that.  They adjusted after going over the scenerio and made the appropriate mission changes.  No others were lost.  The loss of the bird was not from the F-117, but from underestimating the enemy.  Much like you are doing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are alleging something that is not there. Several is two here, as the article describes:
> 
> "He observed the two missiles punch through the low cloud cover and head straight for his aircraft. The first passed over him, close enough to cause buffeting, but did not detonate. The second missile detonated, causing significant damage to the aircraft and causing it to tumble, out of control."
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> You really need to become serious in discussions. Discussions with you impossible because you are always in denial of the given facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how the F-117A was shot down in Serbia by a SA-3 (S-75) Goa SAM in 1999
> 
> Several is more than a couple.  But I won't argue that with you.  The fact is, they were using an antiquated long range radar that isn't used today.  While they got a sense he was there at 31 miles, they got a short lock at about 8 miles and fired.  They used a combination of radar, laser and eyeballs to make the hit.
> 
> What made it possible was the F-117 was wet.  That enabled them to detect him.   They waited until he opened his bomb doors and fired.  What we learned from this is to NEVER expect a decent stealth in the rain.  While a 4th gen is harder to see in the rain, the fifth gen actually degrades it stealth a bit.  Hence the BS claim that the F-35 can't fly in the rain.  It can but you don't go into a heavily contested area in the rain.  Same goes for the F-22.  Instead, you send in your 4th gen F-15/16 combo that actually benefits from the rain.
> 
> We learned that we can't fly the same mission parameters over and over.  It had to be changed.  They flew the F-117 like they did the F-105s during vietnam.  WE lost a lot of Thuds and Pilots that way.  And the Buffs were flown the same way in Vietnam.  When you notice this, you move your radar and put a narrow beam to that area.  A Wide Beam like is normally used is less sensitive.  Somehow, they had the entire flight parameters by eavesdropping on broadcasts for the F-117.  USAF made a number of errors that they should not have made.  Yes, the Slavs did a fantastic job but they were helped.
> 
> About the doors.  The Doors on that particular bird stayed open a full 8 seconds.  When the doors are open, you aren't stealthy at that point.  They got the lock and went for it and got it.  Today, the weapons bay doors on both the F-35 and F-22 are open less than a second.  Not long enough for you to obtain a lock.
> 
> Like everything else, it's a learning curve.  The F-117 was the beginning of the learning curve.  The Bird was fantastic but the serious of comedic errors that were done were the cause of the shoot down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> www.birdstrikes.com is not a reliable source when it comes to issues with US aircraft.
> 
> 
> "In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Dani said the F-117 was detected and shot down during a moonless night — just three days into the war — by a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile.
> 
> "We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.
> 
> It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.
> 
> 
> "Long before the 1999 war, I took keen interest in the stealth fighter and on how it could be detected," said Dani, who has been hailed in Serbia as a war hero. "And I concluded that there are no invisible aircraft, but only less visible."
> 
> 
> The Serb SAMs remained a potent threat throughout the conflict, forcing attacking warplanes to altitudes above 15,000 feet, where they were safe from surface-to-air missiles but far less effective in a ground attack role.
> 
> NATO won the war in June 1999, after President Slobodan Milosevic decided to withdraw his largely intact army from Kosovo, following the destruction of numerous government buildings, bridges and other infrastructure targets throughout Serbia."
> 
> USATODAY.com - Serb discusses 1999 downing of stealth
Click to expand...


Nothing you said contridicts what I have said about the F-117.  The old style ground radar they used used a longer wave than the newer stuff.  They just made it a bit longer.  There were many ifs that made it possible.

IF it wasn't raining and the F-117 wasn't carrying radar reflective water on it.

IF they used a more modern shorter wave radar that could go long distances

IF the F-117 wasn't flying the same profile every time

IF the serbs hadn't intercepted information of the time and place of the launch

Any one of those IF would have prevented the rest from not happening.  It was a comedy of errors along with a pretty damned good Colonel with the Serbs that knew his "Sh..".


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Shut the fuck up, liar.


Consistent with the number of facts in your other posts. Zero.

Tell us more abut the invincible MIG-29 that has consistently been on the losing end of any air combat against modern fighter jets? Dumbass. You're like the National Enquirer of defense tech, lots of made up stories and backtracking when busted talking out of your ass.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up, liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent with the number of facts in your other posts. Zero.
> 
> Tell us more abut the invincible MIG-29 that has consistently been on the losing end of any air combat against modern fighter jets? Dumbass. You're like the National Enquirer of defense tech, lots of made up stories and backtracking when busted talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...

Those airforces don´t have the ability to maintain their aircraft properly and they barely can afford flying hours for training. Also, Russia exports downgraded Mig-29 only. A difference could be the Mig-28sy. The most countries can´t maintain the engines. Cuban Mig-21 engines go to North Korea for the overhaul.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two missiles. Both were on course but one simply didn´t detonate. Your employer, Washington Bob, should have told you that people can open the links that I post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at your own cite.
> 
> They intercepted classified communications that said where and when.  The prepositioned their radar sites for the best detection.  Using low frequency (those radar operators knew their stuff) they use the radar to detect one F-117 with it's doors open.  Even the F-22 pops up on radar the second or two that his weapon bay doors are open.  The radar operators know just how long they could keep their radar on to avoid detection.  Again, these weren't no pilgrims.  The fired "Several Missiles".  Two were close enough to the target to detonate but only one did.  One was enough.  What part of "Several" are you having trouble with.  USAF didn't stop using the F-117 after that.  They adjusted after going over the scenerio and made the appropriate mission changes.  No others were lost.  The loss of the bird was not from the F-117, but from underestimating the enemy.  Much like you are doing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are alleging something that is not there. Several is two here, as the article describes:
> 
> "He observed the two missiles punch through the low cloud cover and head straight for his aircraft. The first passed over him, close enough to cause buffeting, but did not detonate. The second missile detonated, causing significant damage to the aircraft and causing it to tumble, out of control."
> 
> 1999 F-117A shootdown - Wikipedia
> 
> You really need to become serious in discussions. Discussions with you impossible because you are always in denial of the given facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how the F-117A was shot down in Serbia by a SA-3 (S-75) Goa SAM in 1999
> 
> Several is more than a couple.  But I won't argue that with you.  The fact is, they were using an antiquated long range radar that isn't used today.  While they got a sense he was there at 31 miles, they got a short lock at about 8 miles and fired.  They used a combination of radar, laser and eyeballs to make the hit.
> 
> What made it possible was the F-117 was wet.  That enabled them to detect him.   They waited until he opened his bomb doors and fired.  What we learned from this is to NEVER expect a decent stealth in the rain.  While a 4th gen is harder to see in the rain, the fifth gen actually degrades it stealth a bit.  Hence the BS claim that the F-35 can't fly in the rain.  It can but you don't go into a heavily contested area in the rain.  Same goes for the F-22.  Instead, you send in your 4th gen F-15/16 combo that actually benefits from the rain.
> 
> We learned that we can't fly the same mission parameters over and over.  It had to be changed.  They flew the F-117 like they did the F-105s during vietnam.  WE lost a lot of Thuds and Pilots that way.  And the Buffs were flown the same way in Vietnam.  When you notice this, you move your radar and put a narrow beam to that area.  A Wide Beam like is normally used is less sensitive.  Somehow, they had the entire flight parameters by eavesdropping on broadcasts for the F-117.  USAF made a number of errors that they should not have made.  Yes, the Slavs did a fantastic job but they were helped.
> 
> About the doors.  The Doors on that particular bird stayed open a full 8 seconds.  When the doors are open, you aren't stealthy at that point.  They got the lock and went for it and got it.  Today, the weapons bay doors on both the F-35 and F-22 are open less than a second.  Not long enough for you to obtain a lock.
> 
> Like everything else, it's a learning curve.  The F-117 was the beginning of the learning curve.  The Bird was fantastic but the serious of comedic errors that were done were the cause of the shoot down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> www.birdstrikes.com is not a reliable source when it comes to issues with US aircraft.
> 
> 
> "In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Dani said the F-117 was detected and shot down during a moonless night — just three days into the war — by a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile.
> 
> "We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.
> 
> It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.
> 
> 
> "Long before the 1999 war, I took keen interest in the stealth fighter and on how it could be detected," said Dani, who has been hailed in Serbia as a war hero. "And I concluded that there are no invisible aircraft, but only less visible."
> 
> 
> The Serb SAMs remained a potent threat throughout the conflict, forcing attacking warplanes to altitudes above 15,000 feet, where they were safe from surface-to-air missiles but far less effective in a ground attack role.
> 
> NATO won the war in June 1999, after President Slobodan Milosevic decided to withdraw his largely intact army from Kosovo, following the destruction of numerous government buildings, bridges and other infrastructure targets throughout Serbia."
> 
> USATODAY.com - Serb discusses 1999 downing of stealth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you said contridicts what I have said about the F-117.  The old style ground radar they used used a longer wave than the newer stuff.  They just made it a bit longer.  There were many ifs that made it possible.
> 
> IF it wasn't raining and the F-117 wasn't carrying radar reflective water on it.
> 
> IF they used a more modern shorter wave radar that could go long distances
> 
> IF the F-117 wasn't flying the same profile every time
> 
> IF the serbs hadn't intercepted information of the time and place of the launch
> 
> Any one of those IF would have prevented the rest from not happening.  It was a comedy of errors along with a pretty damned good Colonel with the Serbs that knew his "Sh..".
Click to expand...

Rain, bird strike, crash...


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Those airforces don´t have the ability to maintain their aircraft properly and they barely can afford flying hours for training. Also, Russia exports downgraded Mig-29 only. A difference could be the Mig-28sy. The most countries can´t maintain the engines. Cuban Mig-21 engines go to North Korea for the overhaul.


Eritrea didn't buy their MIG-29s from Russia.

Like I said, you have no idea what "invincible" means. It doesn't mean the term applies only when your bucket load of excuses is handy.


----------



## DrainBamage

They should just relabel that button as "I am stuck and can't support my argument" instead of "funny" because that is exactly what you use it for and everyone knows it.

The plane you call invincible was repeatedly shot down in close range turning dogfight combat by Ethiopian Flankers. The MIG-29 has one of the poorest combat records of any modern jet fighter, and only an utter fool would use the word "invincible" to describe it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> They should just relabel that button as "I am stuck and can't support my argument" instead of "funny" because that is exactly what you use it for and everyone knows it.
> 
> The plane you call invincible was repeatedly shot down in close range turning dogfight combat by Ethiopian Flankers. The MIG-29 has one of the poorest combat records of any modern jet fighter, and only an utter fool would use the word "invincible" to describe it.



Hey, go easy on th e kid.  He's entertaining.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> * F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019*


Well yet another manonthestreet bout of dumbfuckery, just about everything you've posted about the F-35 has been proven wrong over time yet you still continue to soldier on making a bigger ass of yourself. Maybe it's time for you to step back and assess why you keep believing these "sources" you like to copy and paste from.

F-35 testers wrap up Weapons Delivery Accuracy tests > Edwards Air Force Base > News
Hamilton said the air-to-air accuracy tests finished in August with air-to-ground tests ending in October. The F-35 ITF then capped off WDA tests by completing testing on the F-35’s GAU-22 25mm gun at the beginning of December. The WDA gun tests included the Air Force’s A variant where the gun is internal carried and on the Marine Corps’ and Navy’s B and C variants, which employ a gun pod beneath the jet.


----------



## DrainBamage

Belgium jumps in... against demonstrating how incredibly fucking stupid manonthestreet has been over recent years claiming intl partners were dropping out.


Belgium – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

WASHINGTON, JAN. 18, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Belgium of thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing aircraft for an estimated cost of $6.53 billion.  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Belgium has requested to buy thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, and thirty-eight (38) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines (34 installed, 4 spares).  Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; Reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; support equipment; tools and test equipment; communications equipment; spares and repair parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.


----------



## Manonthestreet

“Right now, we can’t afford the sustainment costs we have on the F-35. And we’re committed to changing that,” Lord told reporters at a Jan. 31 roundtable, adding that the plane is the “most significant” program in the Department of Defense. Pentagon ‘can't afford the sustainment costs‘ on F-35, Lord says


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> “Right now, we can’t afford the sustainment costs we have on the F-35. And we’re committed to changing that,” Lord told reporters at a Jan. 31 roundtable, adding that the plane is the “most significant” program in the Department of Defense. Pentagon ‘can't afford the sustainment costs‘ on F-35, Lord says



Wow Boyinthealley, you finally hit one right.  No, we can't sustain the current sustainment costs.  On a new weapons system you either learn to get it under control or you get rid of the System.  Sounding like a broken record, the F-15 went through the same process.  Until all the original Mods were done to get it from the A to the C and the parts were manufactured in enough quantity to keep it in the air with an over 70% sortie rate.  Remember, the F-15A started out with a sortie rate of 33% and less.  And even today, the F-15 costs tens of millions more to buy than the F-35A.

I have had a We'll see attitude and have been proven right every step of the way.  The F-35A will go onto to being a great fighter by the time it hits it's stride in 2025 when all the mods are done.  They are still finding new ways to make it do other jobs and are still dreaming up new Mods for it.  But by 2025 it should be done with all that.  Just in time to see it's replacement go into testing.


----------



## DrainBamage

Japan, which has deployed their first F-35A at Misawa Air Base, is considering greatly expanding their F-35 inventory to include both more A models and Bs to operate from shorter runways on remote islands.







F-35B jets eyed to defend remote isles / Fighters also mulled for MSDF’s Izumo ship
*As for the F-35B, the government is planning to indicate the number of aircraft to be procured in the next Medium Term Defense Program, which is to be compiled at the end of this year. It is also mulling including related expenses in the fiscal 2019 budget plan, with a view to starting the delivery of F-35Bs from around fiscal 2024, the sources said. The F-35B is likely to be defined as a successor to the F-15, the ASDF’s main fighter jet. One plan is to introduce about 20 to 40 F-35Bs, which would correspond to one to two squadrons. Tokyo is also considering increasing the number of F-35As in the next midterm defense program, according to the sources. The introduction of F-35Bs would facilitate the use of commercial airports on remote islands.*

This is of course in stark contrast to Manonthestreet's repeated expert predictions about international partners dropping out. Instead countries that have actually received the jets (like Japan and Israel) and seen what they can do are already looking to get more. That is why we roll our eyes on just about everything Manonthestreet posts on this subject, he's been proven so spectacularly wrong about everything related to F-35.


----------



## DrainBamage

Related info on ManOnTheStreet's international partners wisdom: Saudis Join UAE in Push to Buy F-35s as Concerns About the Jet's Computer Network Grow

*On Nov. 12, 2017, Defense News reported that Saudi Arabia is now seeking entry into the F-35 club. At the 2017 Dubai Air Show, American and Emirati officials have also confirmed that the UAE is in discussions with the United States about buying as many as 24 Joint Strike Fighters. These announcements followed reports earlier in November 2017 that Germany sees the stealthy fighter jet as the “preferred choice” to replace its aging Panavia Tornados.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

What Monoboy doesn't understand, part of the cost of the F-35 was learning how to assemble it with the right parts and allowing room for expansion.  

Baked in Stealth in all external panels.  This means that the panel can be removed and replaced and then sent into to Field Maintenance for repair without taking the bird out of service for long.  The B-2 and F-22 have to be sent to the paint shop, painted with special paint and then cured for at least 3 days.  There are two new birds that greatly benefit from the F-35 method and that is the new 6th gen and the B-21. 

Leaving empty spots inside of the fuselage and wings.  This greatly enables it to be easily upgraded with new systems without having to modify the main assembly.  The F-35 will be the first Fighter to receive the new Laser they are playing with.  The B-2 and F-22 are purpose built and really don't have the room to expand like that easily.

Having Engines that generate much more electric power than needed.  This means that they can power more addons internally or externally.  Hence the F-35A is progged to receive the first Fighter Laser.  The EA-18G is just short of not having enough electric power to expand.  Yes, you can hang all kinds of things to make it almost equal in some areas to the F-35 but the more you add, the slower, less manueverable and shorter ranged it becomes until it's just not useable.  Again, the new B-21 and 6th gen fighter benefit from this.

Sensors in the Skin.  The F-22 has a few sensors but not nearly as many as the F-35.  The F-35 has sensors built into it's leading, trailing and side surfaces.  The B-21 and 6th gen fighter expand on that and use it's whole skin for sensors.  

The high cost of the F-35 will greatly reduce the cost of both the new 6th gen fighter and the B-21 making them many times better than the birds they replace.  This is why when the B-21 is introduced into service, they will replace the B-2 one for one for the first 100 and then replace the B-1 one for one after that.  At some point, the bomber fleet will be made up of only two bombers, the B-21 and B-52 (but that's another story we will get into later)

The new 6th gen fighters will not replace the F-16 nor the F-15.  They will replace the F-22 which has a very high operation cost.  Nor will the 6th gen fighter, at first, replace the F-35 but that will happen later.  But the rest of the world had better enjoy the F-35 since the 6th gen won't be exportable just like the F-22 isn't.  

Due to the F-35 learning curve,, the B-21 and 6th gen fighter will be here faster since they only have to expand on the systems already on the F-35 plus add a few new ones.  As the F-35 matures, it becomes more deadly until it will overshadow the F-22.  No, it won't dogfight any better because of the fuselage and wings but it will get other additions that you can't put on the F-22.  Those systems will be already matured for the new B-21 and 6th gen fighter so the costs are lower on them per unit, cost less to fly and more.  Plus the R&D costs will be much less.  I predict that the F-35 is an interim fighter for the US but not for the rest of the world.  And it's going to happen within 10 years.


----------



## DrainBamage

Looks like Japan, who unlike manonthestreet has actually flown F-35s and sees what they can do, is doubling down.

Exclusive: Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters -...
*Exclusive: Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters - sources*
The sources said buying complete aircraft from the United States, at about $100 million each, will save Japan about $30 million per airframe. The purchase will add to an earlier order for 42 of the fighters, most of which are being constructed at a “final assembly and check out” plant in Japan operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (7011.T), the country’s leading defense contractor.

I know manonthestreet has lost all interest in responding to this thread as actual events over time have again and again demonstrated how ridiculous all his earlier claims were, so I'm guessing we won't be treated to his explanation on how the international partners aren't all dropping out like he assured us they would.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-22 Raptor vs. F-35 Lightning II ; Comparing the Roles and Capabilities of the United States’ Fifth Generation Fighters
The fighter’s elite combat role relative to the F-35 is strongly reflected in its air to air combat capabilities, with a number of leading figures in the U.S. military leadership having repeatedly stressed that the F-35 was never designed for and would struggle in an air superiority role. Former Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh stated to this effect that the F-35 "was never designed to be the next dog fighting machine. It was designed to be the multipurpose, data-integration platform that could do all kinds of things in the air-to-ground arena.. it had an air-to-air capability, but it was not intended to be an air-superiority fighter.


----------



## Manonthestreet

*Why the F-35 Isn’t Good Enough for Japan*
Tokyo looks to American and indigenous alternatives as a result of the joint strike fighter’s shortcomings.
Why the F-35 Isn’t Good Enough for Japan


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-22 Raptor vs. F-35 Lightning II ; Comparing the Roles and Capabilities of the United States’ Fifth Generation Fighters
> The fighter’s elite combat role relative to the F-35 is strongly reflected in its air to air combat capabilities, with a number of leading figures in the U.S. military leadership having repeatedly stressed that the F-35 was never designed for and would struggle in an air superiority role. Former Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh stated to this effect that the F-35 "was never designed to be the next dog fighting machine. It was designed to be the multipurpose, data-integration platform that could do all kinds of things in the air-to-ground arena.. it had an air-to-air capability, but it was not intended to be an air-superiority fighter.



If the Enemy were to field true 5the gen fighters this would apply.  They aren't.  You can try and make it look like a duck but if it can't swim then it's not a duck.  No matter how agile you make it, if you go up in smoke or have to violently manuever to avoid an unseen foe then it doesn't matter anymore just how good your bird is.  Okay, you stopped half of the foes missiles from their targets.  That means you just lost half your defending or attacking force.  The confusion factor alone will be a downer to the rest of the pilots and mistakes will ensue.  At some point, you will just bug out since you have no idea of the other defending or attack force.  The Russians are very capable of jamming many different signals.  Ever since the old Mig-23 Jammers that pretty well jammed everything in it's path including their own signals, they have had this capability.  But the F-35, like the F-22 is capable of operating on it's own using passive systems which are just as deadly as the non passive ones.  It won't be until about 2025 at least that this becomes a problem.  More like 2030.  By then the new birds will be rolling off the assembly line that are even better by the US.  So by then, Russia becomes stealthy.  With Stealth you lose agility so you just lost that advantage.  But the new gear from the US takes that new stealth advantage away from you again.  Playing catchup on a budget like Russia is trying to do just doesn't work.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> *Why the F-35 Isn’t Good Enough for Japan*
> Tokyo looks to American and indigenous alternatives as a result of the joint strike fighter’s shortcomings.
> Why the F-35 Isn’t Good Enough for Japan



I read the article and found too many mistakes in it.  For instance, the F-35 doesn't have the capability of using the same Long Ranged Missiles that the F-22 can.  Horse Feathers.  It carries 4 of them internally.  It carries the most recent Amraam.  And can now carry the Aim-9X on short wing pylons.  It probably won't carry the Aim-9X too often since it does take away some performance and stealth but it can do it.  Your whole article is written by some moron that is using information from 2014 as a source.  Or even earlier.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Funny how Japan will probably only put them on their helo carriers and alrdy are working on a true fighter.......Slow and low...still equals dead in todays fighter combat arena......


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Funny how Japan will probably only put them on their helo carriers and alrdy are working on a true fighter.......Slow and low...still equals dead in todays fighter combat arena......


It's incredible how you are still chanting this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary during exercises and from pilots themselves. I mean, I get it that you were clueless a few years ago when this plane was still brand new, but to stubbornly stick to your same song and dance when it keeps on dominating other aircraft takes an impressive amount of self-delusion.

You live in a bizarro world of oppossing fighters taking no drag/range/speed penalty for the ordance, fuel tanks, and targeting pods they carry and being able to find stealth fighters that you have hilariously claimed aren't even stealthy.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Funny how Japan will probably only put them on their helo carriers and alrdy are working on a true fighter.......Slow and low...still equals dead in todays fighter combat arena......



ICU before UCMe means you are dead no matter how low and slow or high and fast you are.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Japan will probably only put them on their helo carriers and alrdy are working on a true fighter.......Slow and low...still equals dead in todays fighter combat arena......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICU before UCMe means you are dead no matter how low and slow or high and fast you are.
Click to expand...

That's a nice fairytale...sold by corp mouthpieces like you..........but f35 nowhere close to F22 in that regard...ergo you will be seen.....why do you think there is such a rush for high end fighters by US, Japan and others lately.....methinks the truth is ugly in regard to the slowboat you try so hard to sell


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Japan will probably only put them on their helo carriers and alrdy are working on a true fighter.......Slow and low...still equals dead in todays fighter combat arena......
> 
> 
> 
> It's incredible how you are still chanting this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary during exercises and from pilots themselves. I mean, I get it that you were clueless a few years ago when this plane was still brand new, but to stubbornly stick to your same song and dance when it keeps on dominating other aircraft takes an impressive amount of self-delusion.
> 
> You live in a bizarro world of oppossing fighters taking no drag/range/speed penalty for the ordance, fuel tanks, and targeting pods they carry and being able to find stealth fighters that you have hilariously claimed aren't even stealthy.
Click to expand...

Not chanting anything......all linked buddy......you believe in magic ,,,f35 always gets first shot and rides away into the sunset,,,,,,,no allowance for tactics or advances by our enemy....by the time this thing gets combat qualled its alrdy garbage......nice expensive targets


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> I read the article and found too many mistakes in it.  For instance, the F-35 doesn't have the capability of using the same Long Ranged Missiles that the F-22 can.  Horse Feathers.  It carries 4 of them internally.  It carries the most recent Amraam.  And can now carry the Aim-9X on short wing pylons.  It probably won't carry the Aim-9X too often since it does take away some performance and stealth but it can do it.  Your whole article is written by some moron that is using information from 2014 as a source.  Or even earlier.


The inaccuracy of that article is almost funny, I'm curious if ManontheStreet even read it before posting it.

F-22s aren't even scheduled to start getting AIM-120Ds until an upgrade plan that starts in 2019, in what universe does an F-35 not have the same long ranged missiles?

You want an article that actually deals in fact instead of blatantly false statements and outright bullshit references to "leading analysts" try this one on:

Exclusive: Japan to buy at least 20 more F-35A stealth fighters -...
*TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan plans to buy at least 20 additional F-35A stealth fighters over the next six years, some or all of which it may purchase directly from Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) in the United States rather than assemble locally, three sources said.

The purchase will add to an earlier order for 42 of the fighters, most of which are being constructed at a “final assembly and check out” plant in Japan operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (7011.T), the country’s leading defense contractor.*



Now put on your thinking caps here... Japan received their first F-35 in 2016, they know exactly what the plane can do. They then make the decision in 2018 to buy 20-25 more F-35s. If you're implying Japan knows what they are doing by wanting to design the F-3 (or whatever it is) then what does Japan's decision to double down on F-35 after getting their hands on it mean? Think man...


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Not chanting anything......all linked buddy......you believe in magic ,,,f35 always gets first shot and rides away into the sunset,,,,,,,no allowance for tactics or advances by our enemy....by the time this thing gets combat qualled its alrdy garbage......nice expensive targets


No you chant... you have a long history of doing fly-by posts to continue your weird anti-F-35 obsession yet NEVER sticking around to defend the flaws in your reasoning or the blogs you post. All you do is regurgitate and run, the most you ever manage to put together as a defense of your opinion is vague references to how you've answered that before years ago somewhere else in this thread, which we all know isn't true.

If not, then please explain to the forum how your "source" says F-35 can't fire the same long range missiles as F-22, which has AIM-120C? Are you going to stand behind that too?

Easy peasy right?

(crickets)


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> no allowance for tactics or advances by our enemy


To believe this you must also believe that pilots from USAF, USMC, Norway, Japan, Israel, etc. are all lying, the thousands of people who participate in Red Flag are lying, and your blog authors who have never stepped foot in a modern fighter jet are gospel.

That sound about right?

Hell we're still waiting for you to show us where you got the "official RCS" stats of F-35, something that everyone knows isn't something officially published anywhere but you somehow claim to have some mysterious source. Bloggers linking to other bloggers who link to other bloggers in some big circle jerk is not an official source by the way.

(crickets)


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Japan will probably only put them on their helo carriers and alrdy are working on a true fighter.......Slow and low...still equals dead in todays fighter combat arena......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICU before UCMe means you are dead no matter how low and slow or high and fast you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a nice fairytale...sold by corp mouthpieces like you..........but f35 nowhere close to F22 in that regard...ergo you will be seen.....why do you think there is such a rush for high end fighters by US, Japan and others lately.....methinks the truth is ugly in regard to the slowboat you try so hard to sell
Click to expand...


15 to 1 record.  Not a bad record.   Meanwhile, against the same ground installation, the A-10, F-16 and F-18 got slaughtered.  Why?  Because they are hard to see and hard to attack.  Strealth is not invisible.  It just makes it hard to see it.  And the F-35 is hard to see.  And it fires on the ground and air assets before it can be seen.  Simple  as that.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Amazing how quick you 2 appear after months of a latent thread to spread your HS


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Japan will probably only put them on their helo carriers and alrdy are working on a true fighter.......Slow and low...still equals dead in todays fighter combat arena......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICU before UCMe means you are dead no matter how low and slow or high and fast you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a nice fairytale...sold by corp mouthpieces like you..........but f35 nowhere close to F22 in that regard...ergo you will be seen.....why do you think there is such a rush for high end fighters by US, Japan and others lately.....methinks the truth is ugly in regard to the slowboat you try so hard to sell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 15 to 1 record.  Not a bad record.   Meanwhile, against the same ground installation, the A-10, F-16 and F-18 got slaughtered.  Why?  Because they are hard to see and hard to attack.  Strealth is not invisible.  It just makes it hard to see it.  And the F-35 is hard to see.  And it fires on the ground and air assets before it can be seen.  Simple  as that.
Click to expand...

So they say.....and we have no idea what the scenarios were


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Amazing how quick you 2 appear after months of a latent thread to spread your HS


Boy that was hard to call wasn't it?

When asked about an obvious error in your "source" you turn on that classic ManOnTheStreet blind/deaf routine. It went exactly as I said, and exactly like you've always done. Spouting bullshit but unable to explain glaring flaws in your argument.

So ManOnTheStreet, why do you think about your "source" (lol) saying the F-22, which currently mounts AIM-120C, uses a long range missile that F-35 doesn't use.

(crickets)


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> So they say.....and we have no idea what the scenarios were


Yep all those pilots, support staff, and analysts running the exercise for years are either lying or don't know what they're doing when they set up exercises to challenge aircraft.

Meanwhile, Manonthestreet will instead double down on bloggers who haven't even seen an F-35 up close. Chanting indeed.

I think we should use the name *crickets* to refer to Manonthestreet.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I never read any of your posts.....tired of your you know more than anybody in the world routine.....all those linked stories,,,,,just all idiots......LLMMMAAOOO


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> I never read any of your posts.....tired of your you know more than anybody in the world routine.....all those linked stories,,,,,just all idiots......LLMMMAAOOO


An interesting (and feeble) way to maintain your crickets personae. Manonthestreet, the poster who can spam links but lacks the intellectual depth to actually discuss or defend any points brought forward. He doesn't read the posts, yet he quotes them to respond. Clearly you read them,  but know you cannot support your bullshit regurgitations so you ignore everything inconvenient to your child like view of the world.

Then the "LLMMMAAOOO" that one would expect from an 8th grader in 2006. Did you type that a lot in your Myspace comments?

So Manonthestreet, why are you posting articles that say F-35 doesn't have the long range missile that F-22 does?

(crickets = Manonthestreet)

We laugh at you.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> *Why the F-35 Isn’t Good Enough for Japan*
> Tokyo looks to American and indigenous alternatives as a result of the joint strike fighter’s shortcomings.


That "article" is so funny in that every time you look another glaringly asinine mistake pops up.

_" lacks the Raptor’s advanced long ranged air-to-air missiles"_
F-22 has AIM-120C, what does this author think F-35 has?

_"The F-35 has less than half the range of the larger F-22"_
F-35 has a greater combat radius than F-22.

_"the [Mitsubishi Shinshin X2] featured potent active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, fly by wire fire control systems, and several other advanced features"_
We're really calling fly by wire control advanced? F-16 had it in the 1970s.


No wonder ManOnTheStreet only posts and doesn't respond, and I think the sources like this he takes for gospel explain why he's come off as so fucking stupid on this topic.


----------



## DrainBamage

Official combat debut, only six months after Israel declared IOC.

The F-35 just made its combat debut

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 has seen combat for the first time. The Israel Defense Forces announced on its Twitter account that the Israeli version of the aircraft, using its “Adir” moniker was used in operational missions. “The Adir planes are already operational and flying in operational missions,” the tweet said, quoting Israel Air Force head Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin. “We are the first in the world to use the F-35 in operational activity.” The Israeli Air Force used the F-35 in two recent strikes in Syria, Norkin said, according to the news outlet Haaretz.

The fifth-generation fighter jet has been lauded as a “game-changer” by the Israeli military, not only for its offensive and stealth capabilities, but for its ability to connect its systems with other aircraft and form an information-sharing network.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Official combat debut, only six months after Israel declared IOC.
> 
> The F-35 just made its combat debut
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s F-35 has seen combat for the first time. The Israel Defense Forces announced on its Twitter account that the Israeli version of the aircraft, using its “Adir” moniker was used in operational missions. “The Adir planes are already operational and flying in operational missions,” the tweet said, quoting Israel Air Force head Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin. “We are the first in the world to use the F-35 in operational activity.” The Israeli Air Force used the F-35 in two recent strikes in Syria, Norkin said, according to the news outlet Haaretz.
> 
> The fifth-generation fighter jet has been lauded as a “game-changer” by the Israeli military, not only for its offensive and stealth capabilities, but for its ability to connect its systems with other aircraft and form an information-sharing network.



After Putin and the Leader of Israel met, the Russians decided not to sell the Syrians nor the Iranians the S-300 or the S-400 system.  The S-200 and older systems don't have a clue that the F-35 is in the area.  And it's doubtful if the S-300 would have either at a long range.  Truth be told, had Russia sold the newer systems to Syria and Iran and Israel knocked them out wholesale, it would have hurt Russian Arms Sales dramatically.  It may not have been by the kindness of Putins heart at all.


----------



## Manonthestreet

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — The Navy’s newest fighter jet, the stealthy F-35C, may not have the range it needs to strike enemy targets, the House Armed Services Committee said in a new report, raising troubling questions about whether the multibillion-dollar program is already outpaced by threats.

And critics say the Navy fighter — part of the Joint Strike Fighter initiative, the most expensive weapons program in history — may actually have been out of date years ago.
Navy’s top-dollar stealth fighter may not go the distance


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — The Navy’s newest fighter jet, the stealthy F-35C, may not have the range it needs to strike enemy targets, the House Armed Services Committee said in a new report, raising troubling questions about whether the multibillion-dollar program is already outpaced by threats.
> 
> And critics say the Navy fighter — part of the Joint Strike Fighter initiative, the most expensive weapons program in history — may actually have been out of date years ago.
> Navy’s top-dollar stealth fighter may not go the distance



You never fail to amaze me.  it's not the F-35C that is the problem.  It's the fact that the Navy stripped all it's Attack birds from it's inventory like the A-6 and A-7 along with the A-5 that had the range.  And by giving up the F-14D that also had the range.  The introduction of the new anti-ship weapons of Russia and China means that the Navy needs to reintroduce long range fighters or attack back into their inventory fast.  Or they need to develop conformal fuel tanks for the F-35Cs and the F-18Es to do the job.  The F-35C is a replacement for the F-18 and was never intended to replace the birds that the navy got rid of decades ago.  Now, it's time to replace the birds that left the hole in the defenses.  I suspect something like an A-12 light might be in order at this point.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Attack craft are never coming back.....Navy chose poorly. F14 Super could have been used as every bit as effective attack as F18....with much longer legs.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Attack craft are never coming back.....Navy chose poorly. F14 Super could have been used as every bit as effective attack as F18....with much longer legs.....



Agreed.  But they cut the procurement funds.  You could buy 3 F-18s for what one F-14D cost.  There just wansn't enough money to have both or enough F-14Ds to do the job.  And the F-14 is a really big bird.  Where you could park one F-14, you can park 2 F-18s.  On a carrier, space is a premium.  While I disagree with their decision, I can understand their logic at the time.  Today, that logic is biting us in the ass.  The A-12 was supposed to fill that role.  But even the A-12 only had an 800 mile range which would not have been enough.   Any fighter would have to have an excess of 1000 mile radius to counter the antiship weapons of the Russian and Chinese today.  Pretty much, the Navy is going to have to be dependent on the Air Force in stopping these threats.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attack craft are never coming back.....Navy chose poorly. F14 Super could have been used as every bit as effective attack as F18....with much longer legs.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But they cut the procurement funds.  You could buy 3 F-18s for what one F-14D cost.  There just wansn't enough money to have both or enough F-14Ds to do the job.  And the F-14 is a really big bird.  Where you could park one F-14, you can park 2 F-18s.  On a carrier, space is a premium.  While I disagree with their decision, I can understand their logic at the time.  Today, that logic is biting us in the ass.  The A-12 was supposed to fill that role.  But even the A-12 only had an 800 mile range which would not have been enough.   Any fighter would have to have an excess of 1000 mile radius to counter the antiship weapons of the Russian and Chinese today.  Pretty much, the Navy is going to have to be dependent on the Air Force in stopping these threats.
Click to expand...

No you couldn't,,,,dont lie......Navy cant count on Airforce......even if they brought attack craft back they have to be escorted and again your range limitation ends your F35 mission short.......how does it feel to have been a useful idiot


----------



## miketx

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

Last time I flew one it seemed to me the stall speed had dropped from 110 mph to 95 mph.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> how does it feel to have been a useful idiot


Says the guy who claims there are published specs on F-35 RCS....


----------



## Manonthestreet

Cant do Air Supe...cant do Strike ….why did we buy it again....


----------



## HenryBHough

F35 was never meant to deal with any foreign force.  Just for a Democrat regime to attack Americans in America when they don't grease up and bend over according to party diktats.  

It's a bell that wants un-ringing but too far along, too many politicians enmeshed in the jobs that would be lost if that happened to tolerate.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attack craft are never coming back.....Navy chose poorly. F14 Super could have been used as every bit as effective attack as F18....with much longer legs.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But they cut the procurement funds.  You could buy 3 F-18s for what one F-14D cost.  There just wansn't enough money to have both or enough F-14Ds to do the job.  And the F-14 is a really big bird.  Where you could park one F-14, you can park 2 F-18s.  On a carrier, space is a premium.  While I disagree with their decision, I can understand their logic at the time.  Today, that logic is biting us in the ass.  The A-12 was supposed to fill that role.  But even the A-12 only had an 800 mile range which would not have been enough.   Any fighter would have to have an excess of 1000 mile radius to counter the antiship weapons of the Russian and Chinese today.  Pretty much, the Navy is going to have to be dependent on the Air Force in stopping these threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you couldn't,,,,dont lie......Navy cant count on Airforce......even if they brought attack craft back they have to be escorted and again your range limitation ends your F35 mission short.......how does it feel to have been a useful idiot
Click to expand...


I thought, for once, we were going to have a useful discussion.  I guess I was wrong.  When you get cornered, you resort to a base method of insulting when you have nothing else.  How's it feel to be the lowest denominator.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does.  It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius.  If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons.  Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.  

Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s.  Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s.  I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own.  The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles.  But can I verify this?  It's speculation since it's listed as classified.

Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does.  It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius.  If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons.  Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.
> 
> Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s.  Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s.  I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own.  The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles.  But can I verify this?  It's speculation since it's listed as classified.
> 
> Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.


More bs .....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does.  It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius.  If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons.  Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.
> 
> Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s.  Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s.  I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own.  The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles.  But can I verify this?  It's speculation since it's listed as classified.
> 
> Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.
> 
> 
> 
> More bs .....
Click to expand...


Then counter it.  It's already been reported that Israel is planning on adding both external hard mount tanks and conformal tanks that are both conforming to the stealth outlines of the F-35.  The reason they are doing this so they can hit Iran directly without refueling.  I don't see the US Navy and the USAF doing anything different.  It's how the EF-18G can stay aloft so long.  Now, counter it with your own research.  Mine is pretty well bullet proof.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does.  It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius.  If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons.  Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.
> 
> Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s.  Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s.  I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own.  The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles.  But can I verify this?  It's speculation since it's listed as classified.
> 
> Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.
> 
> 
> 
> More bs .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then counter it.  It's already been reported that Israel is planning on adding both external hard mount tanks and conformal tanks that are both conforming to the stealth outlines of the F-35.  The reason they are doing this so they can hit Iran directly without refueling.  I don't see the US Navy and the USAF doing anything different.  It's how the EF-18G can stay aloft so long.  Now, counter it with your own research.  Mine is pretty well bullet proof.
Click to expand...

Alrdy did///too short legged in Naval version to be of use...…..put your tanks on they'll see ya mile away......drumbeat continues...getting very apparent Navy really doesn't want a lot of these....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does.  It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius.  If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons.  Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.
> 
> Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s.  Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s.  I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own.  The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles.  But can I verify this?  It's speculation since it's listed as classified.
> 
> Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.
> 
> 
> 
> More bs .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then counter it.  It's already been reported that Israel is planning on adding both external hard mount tanks and conformal tanks that are both conforming to the stealth outlines of the F-35.  The reason they are doing this so they can hit Iran directly without refueling.  I don't see the US Navy and the USAF doing anything different.  It's how the EF-18G can stay aloft so long.  Now, counter it with your own research.  Mine is pretty well bullet proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alrdy did///too short legged in Naval version to be of use...…..put your tanks on they'll see ya mile away......drumbeat continues...getting very apparent Navy really doesn't want a lot of these....
Click to expand...


You only read what you you want to read.  The tanks are to be stealthy.  The conformal Tanks will blend in with the fuselage and the externals will suck right up to the wings and blend in with them.  The externals will hurt the RCS a bit but they will be dropped before encounter so no big deal.  Now you see us, now you don't, just change direction after dropping them.  The Conformals can stay on since they become part of the stealth package.  If it becomes a problem, drop them.  Now you see me, now you don't, just change direction.  You still assume that the F-35 will be flying level, straight and at the same altitude once it's detected with it's tanks.  Newsflash: with it's electronics package, it will know when it's detected and will take the appropriate action.  If it means dropping the tanks, it drops the tanks.  It doesn't have to get out past 1000 miles to attack.  It can get within 250 miles of a ship or 120 miles of an aircraft and attack from there.  Since he used the drop tanks to get there, he has plenty of internal fuel to get home.  The F-35, with both external tanks and conformal tanks can get out to over 1200 miles without touching his internal tanks.  And he then has enough fuel to make it home after his attacks.  The C model has an over 700 mile radius which means that he has a 1400 mile distance.  If the tanks can get him out to 1200 miles then he has some room for error.  Remember, the F-35 isn't just guiding his own weapons in, he's also vectoring in the Ship Weapons in as well.  He has extended the range of the Ships Missiles by a very large margin.  The F-35 has already been used for that with him over 400 miles ahead of the Ship enabling the Ship to fire out past 1000 miles with missiles that usually can't fire past 450 due to the radar curvature of the earth problems.  But a F-35B at 40,000 feet can see well past 1000 miles.  Even without the drop tanks, the C model should be able to go out at least 600 miles and vector in the Ships weapons out past 1200 miles.  Now, put on the stealth tanks and you can get much, much closer.  You can get out to about 1000 miles well past where the F-35 can vector in the Ships weapons.  But where it can use it's own after he cleans up.  Now you see me, now you don't.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Cant do Air Supe...cant do Strike ….why did we buy it again....


At this point you're just a mockery of yourself still chanting the same things years after being proven wrong.

Seriously, what kind of moron looks at a plane that went 20-1 in Red Flag and says it can't do Air Supe? Between you and BluePeter this forum attracts the most braindead posters on the entire internet.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Alrdy did///too short legged in Naval version to be of use...…..


This is idiotic, the Navy set their specifications for range and the plane was developed that met those specs.



Manonthestreet said:


> getting very apparent Navy really doesn't want a lot of these....


Yeah from the same guy who gleefully claimed the Navy F-35 program was in big trouble because of the catobar takeoff vibration issue. They changed the tension a bit, tested, and were all good. You've been babbling about people not wanting this place for years now, and have been proven wrong again and again.


----------



## Bleipriester

Does the F-35 have a S-200 protection now? I mean it had a bird strike protection already.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You only read what you you want to read.


What's funny with ManOnTheStreet is he falls into the same logic failure trap on range and performance comparisons over and over:

1. Compares F-35 performance specs to a clean version of another fighter
2. Then proceeds to compare range of F-35 to another fighter in usual combat configuration which means drop tanks

It's incredibly stupid while at the same time he can't even recognize that he's doing it. He'll say the F-35 is slow because it can't fly as fast as an F-16, but every F-16 on every mission will have gas bags that make it slower than an F-35. He'll look at SU-30 and marvel at how fast it is, but the SU-30 would be carrying six big Russian AA missiles under the wings and a drop tank.

Logic failure.


----------



## Taz

it's still superior to anything the Brits can make.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only read what you you want to read.
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny with ManOnTheStreet is he falls into the same logic failure trap on range and performance comparisons over and over:
> 
> 1. Compares F-35 performance specs to a clean version of another fighter
> 2. Then proceeds to compare range of F-35 to another fighter in usual combat configuration which means drop tanks
> 
> It's incredibly stupid while at the same time he can't even recognize that he's doing it. He'll say the F-35 is slow because it can't fly as fast as an F-16, but every F-16 on every mission will have gas bags that make it slower than an F-35. He'll look at SU-30 and marvel at how fast it is, but the SU-30 would be carrying six big Russian AA missiles under the wings and a drop tank.
> 
> Logic failure.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  If you load out a F-16 with it's full compliment of missiles and two drop tanks, it's barely a supersonic jet.  In fact, it's going to not be able to maintain much past .75 mach cruise with only a short burst to Mach 1.3.  And the F-18 is even worse.  The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.  Then again, the F-15 could probably run the F-22 down in a foot race as well if both were loaded out with externals.  I really want to see the F-15 upgraded to the new 31K engines that are available over the 29K engines that they currently use.  Can you imagine the F-15 with supercruise?  The F-15 can already cruise at Mach .95 now.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.


You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:

Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all

*“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*

So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.

To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?


----------



## miketx

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:
> 
> Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all
> 
> *“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*
> 
> So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.
> 
> To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?
Click to expand...

It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:
> 
> Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all
> 
> *“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*
> 
> So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.
> 
> To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?
Click to expand...


We all talk about top speed of Mil Power like that is the only top speed.  But the F-15 has a speed higher than that.  It's V-Max.  Mil Power is where you can run for a few minutes (maybe 15 max) and still have a engine at full AB and full engine power and still have enough fuel left to get from point a to b.  A fully loaded F-15 will do about Mach 1.8.  But it can go higher than that.  V-max is used to get it out of trouble.  It's where you don't really care if you have any fuel left or if you are spitting engine parts out the back end or melting your leading edges off, you just want out of dodge real fast.  This speed has never been published.  It has been published for the Mig-25B at Mach 3.2 which will land on one engine with one engine smoked (the clean Recon version).  Or Mach 2.8 for the other Mig-25s with smoked engines.  So I doubt if even the normal Mig-25 with a combat load can do more than Mach 1.8 either.  So Mach 1.6 for a combat loaded F-35A is actually quite respectable compared to other fighters.  

But if you clean the other fighters, the F-15 can hit Mach 2.5 in short bursts and the SU-30 can hit Mach 2.25 in short burst.  Just remember, the F-35 hitting Mach 1.6 is a short burst, not continuous flight.  The only bird that can do anything like that would be the F-22 and even it can't really sustain it's mach 1.8 supercruise for very long either.  In reality, the F-15 gets there just as quick.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

miketx said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:
> 
> Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all
> 
> *“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*
> 
> So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.
> 
> To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.
Click to expand...


To add, it's a real bear to even run Mach at near sea level.  The air is thick, the drag is high and the leading edges heat up quick.  Let me paint a Fictitious Scenario that never happened (wink, wink)

You need to get close up pictures of a military installation on the Kamchatka Peninsula but your sat is out of place.  The SR-71 is not available.  What do you do.  You fly in a RC-135 Camera version with the new engines TDY into Elmendorf with replacement engines.  You speed is slightly less than 600 mph advertised.  But it can be done as sealevel.  But that's the advertised top speed.  So you come in low and fast.  You start out low and slow, conserving fuel.  You are trying to be as quiet as possible at this point.

Meanwhile, you have already launched an EC-130 that is on station just outside of international waters.  They are tracking it.  It appears to be flying from Fairbanks to Japan much like a Cargo Plane.  No real threat.

As you approach with your RC, you turn on the speed.  you hit it up to right around 500 mph and will be over your target in a matter of minutes, you slow down, hit the cameras, turn the bird back over the water and hit the water injection.  For the next 15 minutes, you blow black smoke out your tail pipes and keep it below 200 feet off the caps.  

The enemy picked you up right after  you crossed the 12 mile line coming in.  They launched their alert birds.  Mig-31s.  These things are going to be hitting Mach 2 in a matter of a few minutes.  They are going to be passing 20K feet about the time you are making your turn back back towards the water after bagging the pics.  The EC-130 goes to work.  The enemy now has trouble with communications and radar.  So do you but who really cares at this point.  The EC can't stay on station but only a couple of minutes.  Your RC is now hitting his top speed of 580 mph.  The Mig can't really use his radar missiles.  You drop your RC down to 50 feet above the caps which disables any long ranged heat seekers.    Now, the Mig has to get up close, low and personal.  The RC is burning gas fast but he is loaded with it so it's not a concern since he's also a full blown tanker.  The Mig now has drop down low and he runs into a real problem.  He has to slow down considerably.  He is running into a heat problem and he is cobbling fuel like a bandit.  The Tanker goes well past his 580mph top speed and enters into transonic at Mach .95.  He is buffeting and shaking all over the place.  This is an area he was never designed to fly at.  In fact, it's not an area ANY aircraft is designed to fly at.  The Mig has to overtake him and has to expend a lot of gas and keep at full AB to do it at sea level.  He has about 15 minutes of total flight time to do it from the time he launched.  That means he has only about 2 minutes of real pursuit time.  He is pursuing at Mach 1.2.  He fires his heat seakers but they can't lock on.  He gets one short burst from his guns but he can't do enough damage to bring the tanker  down.  The Mig's hail mary fails.  The RC makes it out barely.  The EC has already left.  And the Growlers are waiting to make sure nothing else can get close to the RC later on.  

The RC slows down.  He's now down to 3 engines and only able to make about 350 mph.  He lands back at Elmendorf.  All 4 engines are smoked, the entire airframe has been shaken to pieces.  There are bits and pieces that are just plain missing.  After a full engine swap, the bird is scheduled for a full Depot overhaul.  But the pictures are good.  Mission accomplished.  

Just remember, this never happened.  The names of the Aircraft have been changed to protect the Guilty.  But at sea level, even a Cargo Plane has a chance of outrunning a fighter.  It just might get down to who has the most gas.  And if you fighter is loaded to the gills and has trouble maintaining over Mach 1, he can't really fly at subsonic.  He will have to go below it and the Tanker type will be on equal footing if he is willing to sacrifice and engine.  But he has 4 and can afford it.  Your fighter has 2 and can't afford it.  Sea Level makes everything pretty much equal at this point.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Aaaaaaand Israel suspends its last batch of 25 Brewster Buffalos for Super Eagles.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Aaaaaaand Israel suspends its last batch of 25 Brewster Buffalos for Super Eagles.....



You seem to step in it all the time.  Israel has a large number of birds, both 16s and 15s from the 70s that badly need replacement in order to stay on top in the Middle East.  They aren't buying new F-16s.  They are buying new F-15Is that can do the job of both the 16 and the 15.  It's not about money.  If it were, they would also be buying the newest upgraded F-16 as well.  They aren't slowing down on their F-35A purchases though.  They are looking for buyers for the F-16C/Ds and use that money to buy new F-15Is.  There are a number of countries standing in line to purchase those used F-16s.  What comes out of it is Israel as one of the most sophisticated Air Forces in the World second to none.  Even more than the US maybe except for numbers and the F-22.  Not a bad plan.

Your buddies in Iran should be crapping their baggy pants right about now.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaand Israel suspends its last batch of 25 Brewster Buffalos for Super Eagles.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to step in it all the time.  Israel has a large number of birds, both 16s and 15s from the 70s that badly need replacement in order to stay on top in the Middle East.  They aren't buying new F-16s.  They are buying new F-15Is that can do the job of both the 16 and the 15.  It's not about money.  If it were, they would also be buying the newest upgraded F-16 as well.  They aren't slowing down on their F-35A purchases though.  They are looking for buyers for the F-16C/Ds and use that money to buy new F-15Is.  There are a number of countries standing in line to purchase those used F-16s.  What comes out of it is Israel as one of the most sophisticated Air Forces in the World second to none.  Even more than the US maybe except for numbers and the F-22.  Not a bad plan.
> 
> Your buddies in Iran should be crapping their baggy pants right about now.
Click to expand...

Better check bottom of your shoe.....last 25 on hold......


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Brewster Buffalos


It takes a small man to spend so much effort trying to avoid admitting they were wrong. Every prediction you've made on F-35 has failed, yet here you are stubbornly making an even bigger fool of yourself. I love it.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Israel Prefers Old F-15s to F-35s


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brewster Buffalos
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a small man to spend so much effort trying to avoid admitting they were wrong. Every prediction you've made on F-35 has failed, yet here you are stubbornly making an even bigger fool of yourself. I love it.
Click to expand...

I'm the one with links all you 2 have is hot air


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> I'm the one with links all you 2 have is hot air


And that sums you up pretty nicely... one who can regurgitate links to amateur blogs but has little taste for actually being able to discuss or back up any assertions being made. You post a link, someone points out a flaw in the logic of the blogger, and *poof* Manonthestreet is never heard from again.

You're the guy who said F-35 couldn't fight, and when it started putting up all the 20-1 type kill ratios you had nothing to say.

You're the guy who said SU-35 is better because it flies higher and faster, but can't answer how it does that with a combat load.

You're the guy who said entire F-35C was in serious trouble because of CATOBAR issue, which they fixed with a minor tweak to tension bar.

You're the guy who said intl customers are fleeing, yet you are uninterested in every headline about them signing on.

But we know you won't actually discuss any of those, because you're just the guy with more links. You don't actually understand anything, if you are asked to back up your argument *poof* he's gone. In Manonthestreet's world every fighter flies at full afterburner on every sortie to achieve max speed, and is at airshow stripdown no combat load. In Manonthestreet's world every pilot saying F-35 dominates is a liar even though they actually fly, but his armchair bloggers are the true experts.

Links indeed.


----------



## DrainBamage

As an added bonus, Manonthestreet assures us he knows the RCS of an F-35, since it's "published specs" 

When asked to source these specs (DoD doesn't publish any RCS specs we all know this) our village idiot does the self-reference.... he did it somewhere else in this 100+ page so it's up to us to find it. In other words, talking out of his ass.

So Manonthestreet, since you're suddenly reengaged in the thread, exactly where does DoD list their official specs for F-35 RCS?

*crickets*

Links indeed.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:
> 
> Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all
> 
> *“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*
> 
> So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.
> 
> To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add, it's a real bear to even run Mach at near sea level.  The air is thick, the drag is high and the leading edges heat up quick.  Let me paint a Fictitious Scenario that never happened (wink, wink)
> 
> You need to get close up pictures of a military installation on the Kamchatka Peninsula but your sat is out of place.  The SR-71 is not available.  What do you do.  You fly in a RC-135 Camera version with the new engines TDY into Elmendorf with replacement engines.  You speed is slightly less than 600 mph advertised.  But it can be done as sealevel.  But that's the advertised top speed.  So you come in low and fast.  You start out low and slow, conserving fuel.  You are trying to be as quiet as possible at this point.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have already launched an EC-130 that is on station just outside of international waters.  They are tracking it.  It appears to be flying from Fairbanks to Japan much like a Cargo Plane.  No real threat.
> 
> As you approach with your RC, you turn on the speed.  you hit it up to right around 500 mph and will be over your target in a matter of minutes, you slow down, hit the cameras, turn the bird back over the water and hit the water injection.  For the next 15 minutes, you blow black smoke out your tail pipes and keep it below 200 feet off the caps.
> 
> The enemy picked you up right after  you crossed the 12 mile line coming in.  They launched their alert birds.  Mig-31s.  These things are going to be hitting Mach 2 in a matter of a few minutes.  They are going to be passing 20K feet about the time you are making your turn back back towards the water after bagging the pics.  The EC-130 goes to work.  The enemy now has trouble with communications and radar.  So do you but who really cares at this point.  The EC can't stay on station but only a couple of minutes.  Your RC is now hitting his top speed of 580 mph.  The Mig can't really use his radar missiles.  You drop your RC down to 50 feet above the caps which disables any long ranged heat seekers.    Now, the Mig has to get up close, low and personal.  The RC is burning gas fast but he is loaded with it so it's not a concern since he's also a full blown tanker.  The Mig now has drop down low and he runs into a real problem.  He has to slow down considerably.  He is running into a heat problem and he is cobbling fuel like a bandit.  The Tanker goes well past his 580mph top speed and enters into transonic at Mach .95.  He is buffeting and shaking all over the place.  This is an area he was never designed to fly at.  In fact, it's not an area ANY aircraft is designed to fly at.  The Mig has to overtake him and has to expend a lot of gas and keep at full AB to do it at sea level.  He has about 15 minutes of total flight time to do it from the time he launched.  That means he has only about 2 minutes of real pursuit time.  He is pursuing at Mach 1.2.  He fires his heat seakers but they can't lock on.  He gets one short burst from his guns but he can't do enough damage to bring the tanker  down.  The Mig's hail mary fails.  The RC makes it out barely.  The EC has already left.  And the Growlers are waiting to make sure nothing else can get close to the RC later on.
> 
> The RC slows down.  He's now down to 3 engines and only able to make about 350 mph.  He lands back at Elmendorf.  All 4 engines are smoked, the entire airframe has been shaken to pieces.  There are bits and pieces that are just plain missing.  After a full engine swap, the bird is scheduled for a full Depot overhaul.  But the pictures are good.  Mission accomplished.
> 
> Just remember, this never happened.  The names of the Aircraft have been changed to protect the Guilty.  But at sea level, even a Cargo Plane has a chance of outrunning a fighter.  It just might get down to who has the most gas.  And if you fighter is loaded to the gills and has trouble maintaining over Mach 1, he can't really fly at subsonic.  He will have to go below it and the Tanker type will be on equal footing if he is willing to sacrifice and engine.  But he has 4 and can afford it.  Your fighter has 2 and can't afford it.  Sea Level makes everything pretty much equal at this point.
Click to expand...







Why would the fighter go down low to where he has to fight air density instead of staying high, advancing ahead of the target, and then split essing to drop down on the target from above?  No muss, no fuss.  Come in on a flank attack where the radar cross section is HUGE and the AA-9, even though a shit missile, shouldn't have a problem acquiring the target.  And if the missiles don't work (I agree the AA-11 has a very remote chance of acquiring) then you have 260 rounds of 23mm that you can rake the '135 with from stem to stern.  Yes, it may survive that, but it's doubtful.  

For your hit and run camera mission to work i would want to see a couple of F-15s as escort.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaand Israel suspends its last batch of 25 Brewster Buffalos for Super Eagles.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to step in it all the time.  Israel has a large number of birds, both 16s and 15s from the 70s that badly need replacement in order to stay on top in the Middle East.  They aren't buying new F-16s.  They are buying new F-15Is that can do the job of both the 16 and the 15.  It's not about money.  If it were, they would also be buying the newest upgraded F-16 as well.  They aren't slowing down on their F-35A purchases though.  They are looking for buyers for the F-16C/Ds and use that money to buy new F-15Is.  There are a number of countries standing in line to purchase those used F-16s.  What comes out of it is Israel as one of the most sophisticated Air Forces in the World second to none.  Even more than the US maybe except for numbers and the F-22.  Not a bad plan.
> 
> Your buddies in Iran should be crapping their baggy pants right about now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better check bottom of your shoe.....last 25 on hold......
Click to expand...


You left out the real facts on this one.  The Israelis are looking at replacing their old 1970 series F-15 and 16 birds that are a bit tired.  Like the US, they have early birds that need replacement.  What they are thinking of doing is selling off the old F-16C/D models, using that money to help buy new F-15I 2040C models and still by 25 F-35As.  Now, that makes a lot of sense.  Using the F-35A and the F-15 together is an unbeatable matchup.  This way, they can have a F-35A flying forward while a F-15 2040C flies lag with it's 16 missiles ready to feed the F-35 as it identifies hostiles.  Plus, the F-15 can be loaded with a huge amount of standoff ground attack weapons for the same purpose.  The F-15 2040C is about the only Fighter with a really decent payload that will have the range of the Israeli F-35A with it's conformal fuel tanks.  This means it can easily operate anywhere over Iran it wishes to operate at.  The F-15 2040C is built off the F-15SE with all the extra bells and whistles.  It's a hard combo to go up against.

Once again, boyunderthetarmac, you lose again.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:
> 
> Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all
> 
> *“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*
> 
> So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.
> 
> To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add, it's a real bear to even run Mach at near sea level.  The air is thick, the drag is high and the leading edges heat up quick.  Let me paint a Fictitious Scenario that never happened (wink, wink)
> 
> You need to get close up pictures of a military installation on the Kamchatka Peninsula but your sat is out of place.  The SR-71 is not available.  What do you do.  You fly in a RC-135 Camera version with the new engines TDY into Elmendorf with replacement engines.  You speed is slightly less than 600 mph advertised.  But it can be done as sealevel.  But that's the advertised top speed.  So you come in low and fast.  You start out low and slow, conserving fuel.  You are trying to be as quiet as possible at this point.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have already launched an EC-130 that is on station just outside of international waters.  They are tracking it.  It appears to be flying from Fairbanks to Japan much like a Cargo Plane.  No real threat.
> 
> As you approach with your RC, you turn on the speed.  you hit it up to right around 500 mph and will be over your target in a matter of minutes, you slow down, hit the cameras, turn the bird back over the water and hit the water injection.  For the next 15 minutes, you blow black smoke out your tail pipes and keep it below 200 feet off the caps.
> 
> The enemy picked you up right after  you crossed the 12 mile line coming in.  They launched their alert birds.  Mig-31s.  These things are going to be hitting Mach 2 in a matter of a few minutes.  They are going to be passing 20K feet about the time you are making your turn back back towards the water after bagging the pics.  The EC-130 goes to work.  The enemy now has trouble with communications and radar.  So do you but who really cares at this point.  The EC can't stay on station but only a couple of minutes.  Your RC is now hitting his top speed of 580 mph.  The Mig can't really use his radar missiles.  You drop your RC down to 50 feet above the caps which disables any long ranged heat seekers.    Now, the Mig has to get up close, low and personal.  The RC is burning gas fast but he is loaded with it so it's not a concern since he's also a full blown tanker.  The Mig now has drop down low and he runs into a real problem.  He has to slow down considerably.  He is running into a heat problem and he is cobbling fuel like a bandit.  The Tanker goes well past his 580mph top speed and enters into transonic at Mach .95.  He is buffeting and shaking all over the place.  This is an area he was never designed to fly at.  In fact, it's not an area ANY aircraft is designed to fly at.  The Mig has to overtake him and has to expend a lot of gas and keep at full AB to do it at sea level.  He has about 15 minutes of total flight time to do it from the time he launched.  That means he has only about 2 minutes of real pursuit time.  He is pursuing at Mach 1.2.  He fires his heat seakers but they can't lock on.  He gets one short burst from his guns but he can't do enough damage to bring the tanker  down.  The Mig's hail mary fails.  The RC makes it out barely.  The EC has already left.  And the Growlers are waiting to make sure nothing else can get close to the RC later on.
> 
> The RC slows down.  He's now down to 3 engines and only able to make about 350 mph.  He lands back at Elmendorf.  All 4 engines are smoked, the entire airframe has been shaken to pieces.  There are bits and pieces that are just plain missing.  After a full engine swap, the bird is scheduled for a full Depot overhaul.  But the pictures are good.  Mission accomplished.
> 
> Just remember, this never happened.  The names of the Aircraft have been changed to protect the Guilty.  But at sea level, even a Cargo Plane has a chance of outrunning a fighter.  It just might get down to who has the most gas.  And if you fighter is loaded to the gills and has trouble maintaining over Mach 1, he can't really fly at subsonic.  He will have to go below it and the Tanker type will be on equal footing if he is willing to sacrifice and engine.  But he has 4 and can afford it.  Your fighter has 2 and can't afford it.  Sea Level makes everything pretty much equal at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the fighter go down low to where he has to fight air density instead of staying high, advancing ahead of the target, and then split essing to drop down on the target from above?  No muss, no fuss.  Come in on a flank attack where the radar cross section is HUGE and the AA-9, even though a shit missile, shouldn't have a problem acquiring the target.  And if the missiles don't work (I agree the AA-11 has a very remote chance of acquiring) then you have 260 rounds of 23mm that you can rake the '135 with from stem to stern.  Yes, it may survive that, but it's doubtful.
> 
> For your hit and run camera mission to work i would want to see a couple of F-15s as escort.
Click to expand...


It's an EC and RC game.  You know he's out there somewhere.  But it's going to require visual to do it.  Flying high won't cut it.  You lost the GAC that the Russians rely on so heavily.  This is actually an old  scenario from the 80s that was presented.  The only fighter that had any chance of success of intercepting was the Mig-25.  All others didn't have the speed from ground launch.  Plus, the Mig-25 was the only Soviet Fighter with the possible radar to pull it off.  I would say that there was as much a chance of failure as there was as of success.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaand Israel suspends its last batch of 25 Brewster Buffalos for Super Eagles.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to step in it all the time.  Israel has a large number of birds, both 16s and 15s from the 70s that badly need replacement in order to stay on top in the Middle East.  They aren't buying new F-16s.  They are buying new F-15Is that can do the job of both the 16 and the 15.  It's not about money.  If it were, they would also be buying the newest upgraded F-16 as well.  They aren't slowing down on their F-35A purchases though.  They are looking for buyers for the F-16C/Ds and use that money to buy new F-15Is.  There are a number of countries standing in line to purchase those used F-16s.  What comes out of it is Israel as one of the most sophisticated Air Forces in the World second to none.  Even more than the US maybe except for numbers and the F-22.  Not a bad plan.
> 
> Your buddies in Iran should be crapping their baggy pants right about now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better check bottom of your shoe.....last 25 on hold......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out the real facts on this one.  The Israelis are looking at replacing their old 1970 series F-15 and 16 birds that are a bit tired.  Like the US, they have early birds that need replacement.  What they are thinking of doing is selling off the old F-16C/D models, using that money to help buy new F-15I 2040C models and still by 25 F-35As.  Now, that makes a lot of sense.  Using the F-35A and the F-15 together is an unbeatable matchup.  This way, they can have a F-35A flying forward while a F-15 2040C flies lag with it's 16 missiles ready to feed the F-35 as it identifies hostiles.  Plus, the F-15 can be loaded with a huge amount of standoff ground attack weapons for the same purpose.  The F-15 2040C is about the only Fighter with a really decent payload that will have the range of the Israeli F-35A with it's conformal fuel tanks.  This means it can easily operate anywhere over Iran it wishes to operate at.  The F-15 2040C is built off the F-15SE with all the extra bells and whistles.  It's a hard combo to go up against.
> 
> Once again, boyunderthetarmac, you lose again.
Click to expand...

And yet the buy is on old ...all your bs doesn't negate that. By time they get done replacing F-15s that'll be several yrs down the road ....order may as well be cancelled. Big article in real clear defense today arguing against cancelling US F35 buy ....very curious .....wouldn't ya say ...post it later


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:
> 
> Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all
> 
> *“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*
> 
> So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.
> 
> To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add, it's a real bear to even run Mach at near sea level.  The air is thick, the drag is high and the leading edges heat up quick.  Let me paint a Fictitious Scenario that never happened (wink, wink)
> 
> You need to get close up pictures of a military installation on the Kamchatka Peninsula but your sat is out of place.  The SR-71 is not available.  What do you do.  You fly in a RC-135 Camera version with the new engines TDY into Elmendorf with replacement engines.  You speed is slightly less than 600 mph advertised.  But it can be done as sealevel.  But that's the advertised top speed.  So you come in low and fast.  You start out low and slow, conserving fuel.  You are trying to be as quiet as possible at this point.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have already launched an EC-130 that is on station just outside of international waters.  They are tracking it.  It appears to be flying from Fairbanks to Japan much like a Cargo Plane.  No real threat.
> 
> As you approach with your RC, you turn on the speed.  you hit it up to right around 500 mph and will be over your target in a matter of minutes, you slow down, hit the cameras, turn the bird back over the water and hit the water injection.  For the next 15 minutes, you blow black smoke out your tail pipes and keep it below 200 feet off the caps.
> 
> The enemy picked you up right after  you crossed the 12 mile line coming in.  They launched their alert birds.  Mig-31s.  These things are going to be hitting Mach 2 in a matter of a few minutes.  They are going to be passing 20K feet about the time you are making your turn back back towards the water after bagging the pics.  The EC-130 goes to work.  The enemy now has trouble with communications and radar.  So do you but who really cares at this point.  The EC can't stay on station but only a couple of minutes.  Your RC is now hitting his top speed of 580 mph.  The Mig can't really use his radar missiles.  You drop your RC down to 50 feet above the caps which disables any long ranged heat seekers.    Now, the Mig has to get up close, low and personal.  The RC is burning gas fast but he is loaded with it so it's not a concern since he's also a full blown tanker.  The Mig now has drop down low and he runs into a real problem.  He has to slow down considerably.  He is running into a heat problem and he is cobbling fuel like a bandit.  The Tanker goes well past his 580mph top speed and enters into transonic at Mach .95.  He is buffeting and shaking all over the place.  This is an area he was never designed to fly at.  In fact, it's not an area ANY aircraft is designed to fly at.  The Mig has to overtake him and has to expend a lot of gas and keep at full AB to do it at sea level.  He has about 15 minutes of total flight time to do it from the time he launched.  That means he has only about 2 minutes of real pursuit time.  He is pursuing at Mach 1.2.  He fires his heat seakers but they can't lock on.  He gets one short burst from his guns but he can't do enough damage to bring the tanker  down.  The Mig's hail mary fails.  The RC makes it out barely.  The EC has already left.  And the Growlers are waiting to make sure nothing else can get close to the RC later on.
> 
> The RC slows down.  He's now down to 3 engines and only able to make about 350 mph.  He lands back at Elmendorf.  All 4 engines are smoked, the entire airframe has been shaken to pieces.  There are bits and pieces that are just plain missing.  After a full engine swap, the bird is scheduled for a full Depot overhaul.  But the pictures are good.  Mission accomplished.
> 
> Just remember, this never happened.  The names of the Aircraft have been changed to protect the Guilty.  But at sea level, even a Cargo Plane has a chance of outrunning a fighter.  It just might get down to who has the most gas.  And if you fighter is loaded to the gills and has trouble maintaining over Mach 1, he can't really fly at subsonic.  He will have to go below it and the Tanker type will be on equal footing if he is willing to sacrifice and engine.  But he has 4 and can afford it.  Your fighter has 2 and can't afford it.  Sea Level makes everything pretty much equal at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the fighter go down low to where he has to fight air density instead of staying high, advancing ahead of the target, and then split essing to drop down on the target from above?  No muss, no fuss.  Come in on a flank attack where the radar cross section is HUGE and the AA-9, even though a shit missile, shouldn't have a problem acquiring the target.  And if the missiles don't work (I agree the AA-11 has a very remote chance of acquiring) then you have 260 rounds of 23mm that you can rake the '135 with from stem to stern.  Yes, it may survive that, but it's doubtful.
> 
> For your hit and run camera mission to work i would want to see a couple of F-15s as escort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an EC and RC game.  You know he's out there somewhere.  But it's going to require visual to do it.  Flying high won't cut it.  You lost the GAC that the Russians rely on so heavily.  This is actually an old  scenario from the 80s that was presented.  The only fighter that had any chance of success of intercepting was the Mig-25.  All others didn't have the speed from ground launch.  Plus, the Mig-25 was the only Soviet Fighter with the possible radar to pull it off.  I would say that there was as much a chance of failure as there was as of success.
Click to expand...









Flying high gives you the best chance to visually spot the aircraft.  Low and fast and you are viewing a very small swath of ocean.  High and low speed and you get to scan far more ocean for your target.  You already have a target area, you simply do a time/distance eventual homeplate calculation, and you KNOW the target has to be along a certain vector.  All you have to do is intercept it.   The EC-130 actually helps the MiG because you automatically know the target MUST be within the region of coverage.  

That's why if you don't have a MiGcap, you are in deep trouble.


----------



## Manonthestreet

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...ir_superiority_they_need_the_f-35_113685.html
Could the US buy be in jeopardy...what have the Israelis learned that made them "postpone final buy? Great sensor platform but very limited weapons capability....perhaps limiting them to say twice your F117 would make more sense. To buy F35 bs you have to believe in the one missile one kill mantra...which never happens in real world. Once in a dogfight it has no way to exit until someone is dead or out of ammo because its too slow.Its a specialty platform, not backbone fighter they bill it as.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> And yet the buy is on old ...all your bs doesn't negate that. By time they get done replacing F-15s that'll be several yrs down the road ....order may as well be cancelled.


You continue to post things that scream "clueless" in this thread, it's free entertainment.

They are using F-15s and F-35s for different roles, they aren't going to replace F-15s with F-35s down the road. They would replace the F-16Is with F-35s.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...ir_superiority_they_need_the_f-35_113685.html


So let me get this straight, Mr. "I've got the most links" who measures his knowledge in ability to regurgitate is posting an article where a veteran pilot says:

*"If we want to fight, win, and live to fly another day, we need the F-35" *

Sounds like you've got a serious case of selective sourcing Mr. Links.



Manonthestreet said:


> Great sensor platform but very limited weapons capability....perhaps limiting them to say twice your F117 would make more sense. To buy F35 bs you have to believe in the one missile one kill mantra...which never happens in real world.


They will carry six AAMs internally in AA role, which is actually quite comparable to other modern fighters. You really should read up on things before you post about them.



Manonthestreet said:


> Once in a dogfight it has no way to exit until someone is dead or out of ammo because its too slow.I


And here he is again not understand the speed thing, so let's try the same question:

Article was posted where F-15 pilot says his F-15 (top speed clean mach 2.5) *maxed out at mach 1.8 in combat load*, because of increased drag.
An SU-35 has a clean top speed of mach 2.25, so using same function would probably be about mach 1.55 in combat configuration.
An F-16s top speed is about mach 2 clean, can you guess how fast it flies in combat configuration? I'm not sure, maybe mach 1.2?
An F-18's top speed is mach 1.8 clean, same question. Take a guess.

An F-35's top speed is mach 1.6, and with internal weapons it's top speed in combat configuration is exactly the same at mach 1.6. Are you really so dense you can't figure out how stupid you sound when you constantly focus on F-35's top speed? You don't have to answer that.

Odds of Manonthestreet actually responding to this point and explaining what magic universe he lives in where Russian planes all fly around with those large Russian AAMs and gas bags yet suffer no kinematic penalty like US planes do... ZERO.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the buy is on old ...all your bs doesn't negate that. By time they get done replacing F-15s that'll be several yrs down the road ....order may as well be cancelled.
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to post things that scream "clueless" in this thread, it's free entertainment.
> 
> They are using F-15s and F-35s for different roles, they aren't going to replace F-15s with F-35s down the road. They would replace the F-16Is with F-35s.
Click to expand...

You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it. Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.....and point defense fighter at best. Team it with flock of drones ya may have something.....


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...ir_superiority_they_need_the_f-35_113685.html
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, Mr. "I've got the most links" who measures his knowledge in ability to regurgitate is posting an article where a veteran pilot says:
> 
> *"If we want to fight, win, and live to fly another day, we need the F-35" *
> 
> Sounds like you've got a serious case of selective sourcing Mr. Links.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great sensor platform but very limited weapons capability....perhaps limiting them to say twice your F117 would make more sense. To buy F35 bs you have to believe in the one missile one kill mantra...which never happens in real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will carry six AAMs internally in AA role, which is actually quite comparable to other modern fighters. You really should read up on things before you post about them.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once in a dogfight it has no way to exit until someone is dead or out of ammo because its too slow.I
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here he is again not understand the speed thing, so let's try the same question:
> 
> Article was posted where F-15 pilot says his F-15 (top speed clean mach 2.5) *maxed out at mach 1.8 in combat load*, because of increased drag.
> An SU-35 has a clean top speed of mach 2.25, so using same function would probably be about mach 1.55 in combat configuration.
> An F-16s top speed is about mach 2 clean, can you guess how fast it flies in combat configuration? I'm not sure, maybe mach 1.2?
> An F-18's top speed is mach 1.8 clean, same question. Take a guess.
> 
> An F-35's top speed is mach 1.6, and with internal weapons it's top speed in combat configuration is exactly the same at mach 1.6. Are you really so dense you can't figure out how stupid you sound when you constantly focus on F-35's top speed? You don't have to answer that.
> 
> Odds of Manonthestreet actually responding to this point and explaining what magic universe he lives in where Russian planes all fly around with those large Russian AAMs and gas bags yet suffer no kinematic penalty like US planes do... ZERO.
Click to expand...

Again you miss the point....why does such an article need to written at this juncture.....I would guess the Israelis have learned some unpleasant truth about it and shared those with US counterparts. We've produced around 300 of them and none have been used.....stuff like that would cause a thinking person to go...hhhmmmm eh.....but keep regurgitating corp line and dont be surprised when its learned we have a flying version of LCS ie totally worthless except for menial tasks


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart


Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.



Manonthestreet said:


> ......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it.


Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.

From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*



They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail. 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
*The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....

...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..




Manonthestreet said:


> Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.


Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> We've produced around 300 of them and none have been used.....stuff like that would cause a thinking person to go...hhhmmmm eh


F-22 entered service in 2005, and was "used" in 12 years later. F-35 was declared combat ready two years ago.

A thinking man would have considered that before posting something so stupid.



Manonthestreet said:


> *crickets*


Boy that sure was tough predicting that Manonthestreet would ignore for at least the 5th time the reason his constant harping about F-35 top speed makes no sense.

This time was beautiful because you actually responded to the post, just put the blinders on for the part that dumps you in the toilet.

Chirp...  chirp..


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've produced around 300 of them and none have been used.....stuff like that would cause a thinking person to go...hhhmmmm eh
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 entered service in 2005, and was "used" in 12 years later. F-35 was declared combat ready two years ago.
> 
> A thinking man would have considered that before posting something so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *crickets*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy that sure was tough predicting that Manonthestreet would ignore for at least the 5th time the reason his constant harping about F-35 top speed makes no sense.
> 
> This time was beautiful because you actually responded to the post, just put the blinders on for the part that dumps you in the toilet.
> 
> Chirp...  chirp..
Click to expand...

Propaganda.....none of first three runs can be used in combat,,,only version 4 has complete computer package.....
Hundreds of F-35s may now never be made combat-ready due to budget constraints | SOFREP


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.
> 
> From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
> Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
> *The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....
> 
> ...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.
Click to expand...

Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaand Israel suspends its last batch of 25 Brewster Buffalos for Super Eagles.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to step in it all the time.  Israel has a large number of birds, both 16s and 15s from the 70s that badly need replacement in order to stay on top in the Middle East.  They aren't buying new F-16s.  They are buying new F-15Is that can do the job of both the 16 and the 15.  It's not about money.  If it were, they would also be buying the newest upgraded F-16 as well.  They aren't slowing down on their F-35A purchases though.  They are looking for buyers for the F-16C/Ds and use that money to buy new F-15Is.  There are a number of countries standing in line to purchase those used F-16s.  What comes out of it is Israel as one of the most sophisticated Air Forces in the World second to none.  Even more than the US maybe except for numbers and the F-22.  Not a bad plan.
> 
> Your buddies in Iran should be crapping their baggy pants right about now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better check bottom of your shoe.....last 25 on hold......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out the real facts on this one.  The Israelis are looking at replacing their old 1970 series F-15 and 16 birds that are a bit tired.  Like the US, they have early birds that need replacement.  What they are thinking of doing is selling off the old F-16C/D models, using that money to help buy new F-15I 2040C models and still by 25 F-35As.  Now, that makes a lot of sense.  Using the F-35A and the F-15 together is an unbeatable matchup.  This way, they can have a F-35A flying forward while a F-15 2040C flies lag with it's 16 missiles ready to feed the F-35 as it identifies hostiles.  Plus, the F-15 can be loaded with a huge amount of standoff ground attack weapons for the same purpose.  The F-15 2040C is about the only Fighter with a really decent payload that will have the range of the Israeli F-35A with it's conformal fuel tanks.  This means it can easily operate anywhere over Iran it wishes to operate at.  The F-15 2040C is built off the F-15SE with all the extra bells and whistles.  It's a hard combo to go up against.
> 
> Once again, boyunderthetarmac, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the buy is on old ...all your bs doesn't negate that. By time they get done replacing F-15s that'll be several yrs down the road ....order may as well be cancelled. Big article in real clear defense today arguing against cancelling US F35 buy ....very curious .....wouldn't ya say ...post it later
Click to expand...


Yet, the F-35 continues to be purchased.  You just can't win no matter what, can you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it,  I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:
> 
> Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all
> 
> *“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”*
> 
> So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.
> 
> To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the _minimum_ program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?
> 
> 
> 
> It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add, it's a real bear to even run Mach at near sea level.  The air is thick, the drag is high and the leading edges heat up quick.  Let me paint a Fictitious Scenario that never happened (wink, wink)
> 
> You need to get close up pictures of a military installation on the Kamchatka Peninsula but your sat is out of place.  The SR-71 is not available.  What do you do.  You fly in a RC-135 Camera version with the new engines TDY into Elmendorf with replacement engines.  You speed is slightly less than 600 mph advertised.  But it can be done as sealevel.  But that's the advertised top speed.  So you come in low and fast.  You start out low and slow, conserving fuel.  You are trying to be as quiet as possible at this point.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have already launched an EC-130 that is on station just outside of international waters.  They are tracking it.  It appears to be flying from Fairbanks to Japan much like a Cargo Plane.  No real threat.
> 
> As you approach with your RC, you turn on the speed.  you hit it up to right around 500 mph and will be over your target in a matter of minutes, you slow down, hit the cameras, turn the bird back over the water and hit the water injection.  For the next 15 minutes, you blow black smoke out your tail pipes and keep it below 200 feet off the caps.
> 
> The enemy picked you up right after  you crossed the 12 mile line coming in.  They launched their alert birds.  Mig-31s.  These things are going to be hitting Mach 2 in a matter of a few minutes.  They are going to be passing 20K feet about the time you are making your turn back back towards the water after bagging the pics.  The EC-130 goes to work.  The enemy now has trouble with communications and radar.  So do you but who really cares at this point.  The EC can't stay on station but only a couple of minutes.  Your RC is now hitting his top speed of 580 mph.  The Mig can't really use his radar missiles.  You drop your RC down to 50 feet above the caps which disables any long ranged heat seekers.    Now, the Mig has to get up close, low and personal.  The RC is burning gas fast but he is loaded with it so it's not a concern since he's also a full blown tanker.  The Mig now has drop down low and he runs into a real problem.  He has to slow down considerably.  He is running into a heat problem and he is cobbling fuel like a bandit.  The Tanker goes well past his 580mph top speed and enters into transonic at Mach .95.  He is buffeting and shaking all over the place.  This is an area he was never designed to fly at.  In fact, it's not an area ANY aircraft is designed to fly at.  The Mig has to overtake him and has to expend a lot of gas and keep at full AB to do it at sea level.  He has about 15 minutes of total flight time to do it from the time he launched.  That means he has only about 2 minutes of real pursuit time.  He is pursuing at Mach 1.2.  He fires his heat seakers but they can't lock on.  He gets one short burst from his guns but he can't do enough damage to bring the tanker  down.  The Mig's hail mary fails.  The RC makes it out barely.  The EC has already left.  And the Growlers are waiting to make sure nothing else can get close to the RC later on.
> 
> The RC slows down.  He's now down to 3 engines and only able to make about 350 mph.  He lands back at Elmendorf.  All 4 engines are smoked, the entire airframe has been shaken to pieces.  There are bits and pieces that are just plain missing.  After a full engine swap, the bird is scheduled for a full Depot overhaul.  But the pictures are good.  Mission accomplished.
> 
> Just remember, this never happened.  The names of the Aircraft have been changed to protect the Guilty.  But at sea level, even a Cargo Plane has a chance of outrunning a fighter.  It just might get down to who has the most gas.  And if you fighter is loaded to the gills and has trouble maintaining over Mach 1, he can't really fly at subsonic.  He will have to go below it and the Tanker type will be on equal footing if he is willing to sacrifice and engine.  But he has 4 and can afford it.  Your fighter has 2 and can't afford it.  Sea Level makes everything pretty much equal at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the fighter go down low to where he has to fight air density instead of staying high, advancing ahead of the target, and then split essing to drop down on the target from above?  No muss, no fuss.  Come in on a flank attack where the radar cross section is HUGE and the AA-9, even though a shit missile, shouldn't have a problem acquiring the target.  And if the missiles don't work (I agree the AA-11 has a very remote chance of acquiring) then you have 260 rounds of 23mm that you can rake the '135 with from stem to stern.  Yes, it may survive that, but it's doubtful.
> 
> For your hit and run camera mission to work i would want to see a couple of F-15s as escort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an EC and RC game.  You know he's out there somewhere.  But it's going to require visual to do it.  Flying high won't cut it.  You lost the GAC that the Russians rely on so heavily.  This is actually an old  scenario from the 80s that was presented.  The only fighter that had any chance of success of intercepting was the Mig-25.  All others didn't have the speed from ground launch.  Plus, the Mig-25 was the only Soviet Fighter with the possible radar to pull it off.  I would say that there was as much a chance of failure as there was as of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flying high gives you the best chance to visually spot the aircraft.  Low and fast and you are viewing a very small swath of ocean.  High and low speed and you get to scan far more ocean for your target.  You already have a target area, you simply do a time/distance eventual homeplate calculation, and you KNOW the target has to be along a certain vector.  All you have to do is intercept it.   The EC-130 actually helps the MiG because you automatically know the target MUST be within the region of coverage.
> 
> That's why if you don't have a MiGcap, you are in deep trouble.
Click to expand...


The original model had a Recce RC-135 in the mix.  It only had to switch on for a few minutes and then exit.  Never coming outside international waters.  The Recces played havoc with the Soviets in the early 70s.  You might see them but you also might miss something else like a camera ship or a bomber or two.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've produced around 300 of them and none have been used.....stuff like that would cause a thinking person to go...hhhmmmm eh
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 entered service in 2005, and was "used" in 12 years later. F-35 was declared combat ready two years ago.
> 
> A thinking man would have considered that before posting something so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *crickets*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy that sure was tough predicting that Manonthestreet would ignore for at least the 5th time the reason his constant harping about F-35 top speed makes no sense.
> 
> This time was beautiful because you actually responded to the post, just put the blinders on for the part that dumps you in the toilet.
> 
> Chirp...  chirp..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda.....none of first three runs can be used in combat,,,only version 4 has complete computer package.....
> Hundreds of F-35s may now never be made combat-ready due to budget constraints | SOFREP
Click to expand...


You mean the first 103 which were all test birds.  They are still being used as either test birds or parts.  Certainly not "Hundreds".  Just stop making shit up.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.
> 
> From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
> Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
> *The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....
> 
> ...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled
Click to expand...


Years, as in a couple of years.  War is a long plan when spending billions of dollars.  Otherwise, anyone could do it.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled


Like I tried to explain but you can't wrap your head around, there is no "this or that" issue but in your own little pea brain. F-15 complements F-35, they have different capabilities. Ordering one doesn't indicate canceling the other.

Oh yeah, we all notice that you continue to go crickets chirping on addressing the "F-35 to slow" logic fail. That's embarrassing for you ain't it?


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Propaganda.....none of first three runs can be used in combat,,,only version 4 has complete computer package.....
> Hundreds of F-35s may now never be made combat-ready due to budget constraints | SOFREP


Claiming this doesn't help your case in implying since USA hasn't used them they are no good. You're basically arguing against yourself.

So... you never answered Mr. "I've got the most links"... what about the F-22? How long did they take to use that? 

Oh yeah, we all notice that you continue to go crickets chirping on addressing the "F-35 to slow" logic fail. That's embarrassing for you ain't it?


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Yet, the F-35 continues to be purchased.  You just can't win no matter what, can you.


Every time he puts his toe in this thread he gets made a fool of by contradicting himself and proving himself unable to respond to anything counter to his narrative. It's pretty damn funny.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Su 35 su 30 fly higher, faster, farther than f-35 carry more missles have better jamming capability against missles fired at them......really is no contest


Pop quiz... what is the max speed and altitude of an SU-30/35 in combat configuration, specifically while carrying those big Russian "more missiles" that you're talking about?

You have no idea do you? We know this because you think Russian jets fly in Manonthestreet's magic fantasy land where the combat configured top speed and max altitude is exactly the same as a clean bird with hardly any fuel that would achieve that max speed. F-15 pilot says he can't get past mach 1.8 (versus F-15 stated max mach 2.5) so how do you translate that into SU-30/35 performance?

To take your foolishness farther, did you know that the overwhelming majority of combat kills in the modern era have been at transonic speed and medium (30kish) altitude? Once you know that (look it up if you don't believe me) why do you think superior max altitude and speed are a panacea in regards to measuring combat effectiveness?

Manonthestreet  = *crickets* chirp chirp....


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> very limited weapons capability....perhaps limiting them to say twice your F117 would make more sense. To buy F35 bs you have to believe in the one missile one kill mantra...which never happens in real world.


Let's have more fun with this ignorance. F-35 currently can carry 4 AAMs internally, and will carry 6 AAMs internally with scheduled block 4 upgrade.

So when you criticize it by saying one must believe a one missile one kill mantra, do you really think that makes sense given common air-to-air loadouts of most combat aircraft? You don't have to answer that, and really we know you won't since you're really good at saying something stupid but not usually interested in standing up for what you post.


Let's count the missiles on an F-16... hey it's four! According to Manonthestreet this plane is fatally flawed since one must believe in one missile one kill mantra.









Dang it someone tell these planes that Manonthestreet says it doesn't make sense to be intercepting that Bear with only those missiles.








Yikes 4 AAMs for this F-18, clearly he's not as smart as Manonthestreet since air combat is ineffective with 4 missiles.








Even the Russians are running afoul of Manonthestreet's wisdom








Bottom line = 6 AAMs is plenty for most air-to-air combat loads, and if they are running offensive counter-air they could always use a combination of stealthy F-35s carrying internally and missile trucks carrying 14 AIM-120Ds by using the wing pylons.


----------



## Suasponte

Super duck


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Suasponte said:


> Super duck



As compare to what?


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap


Hi! Here we are 18 months later.

F-35 inventory soars in new Pentagon spending bill

"_Beyond the 77 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters authorized by the 2019 defense policy bill, congressional appropriators are adding another 16 for a total of 93"_

Sure sounds like the opposite of the program death spiral you keep on predicting.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> We've produced around 300 of them and none have been used.....stuff like that would cause a thinking person to go...hhhmmmm eh





Manonthestreet said:


> by the time this thing gets combat qualled





Manonthestreet said:


> Not four before it hits combat





Manonthestreet said:


> Gee didnt they declare it combat rdy yet they cant even send on a gravy run against isis


USMC just used F-35B for air strikes in Afghanistan, just three years after IOC. To put that in perspective F-22 which I've seen posts in this forum saying "at least it's seen combat" was IOC in 2005 and flew it's first combat mission in 2014.

It's a new capability for USMC's amphibs, AV-8B has a combat radius of only 300 miles with drop tanks which would not have allowed them to perform air strikes Afghanistan from Essex without refueling, but F-35B combat radius is slightly over 500 miles on internal fuel. USMC can now use aircraft from amphibs to strike farther, strike faster, and perform missions like air superiority, SEAD/DEAD, precision bombing and ISR in heavily contested airspace, electronic attack, etc. that they couldn't do before.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Love the F-22...it works and has 15-1 kill ratio on f-15 instead of losing everytime to f-16


You know what's hilarious about this statement? That 15-1 kill ratio was in exercises like Red Flag, since F-22 has never seen air combat.

Yet what happened when F-35 put up similarly gaudy 20-1 kill ratio numbers in exercises? You dismiss it as propaganda, despite pilots from various services and various countries saying it outright dominates.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

westwall said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
Click to expand...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 218927 View attachment 218928
Click to expand...


The later upgrades to the F-4 got rid of the smoking trails it was famous for.   Plus, the slatted E made it  into a great turn and burn fighter.  Until the F-15 was ironed out, there really wasn't  anything out there as good as the F-4 as a multirole fighter or an  interceptor.  Thinkof this, it took 2 Fighters to take over the jobs that the F-4 was doing.  That says loads just how good the F-4 was in the 70s.  But by 1980, the F-15 and the F-16 came into their own and the F-4s day was done.  I was heartbroken when they turned them into Target Drones.  Not the way for such a proud bird to go out.

Now, it's the F-16s day that will end sooner than later.  When they get the number of F-35s in service, I suspect that the F-16s will meet the same fate.  The F-15 will make it a bit longer as there is nothing out there in enough numbers to replace them as of this time.  But it's going to happen.  We just don't know what that will be yet.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

Daryl Hunt said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 218927 View attachment 218928
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The later upgrades to the F-4 got rid of the smoking trails it was famous for.   Plus, the slatted E made it  into a great turn and burn fighter.  Until the F-15 was ironed out, there really wasn't  anything out there as good as the F-4 as a multirole fighter or an  interceptor.  Thinkof this, it took 2 Fighters to take over the jobs that the F-4 was doing.  That says loads just how good the F-4 was in the 70s.  But by 1980, the F-15 and the F-16 came into their own and the F-4s day was done.  I was heartbroken when they turned them into Target Drones.  Not the way for such a proud bird to go out.
> 
> Now, it's the F-16s day that will end sooner than later.  When they get the number of F-35s in service, I suspect that the F-16s will meet the same fate.  The F-15 will make it a bit longer as there is nothing out there in enough numbers to replace them as of this time.  But it's going to happen.  We just don't know what that will be yet.
Click to expand...








I thought the venerable F-4 made it into the 1990s in the Wild Weasel role?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 218927 View attachment 218928
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The later upgrades to the F-4 got rid of the smoking trails it was famous for.   Plus, the slatted E made it  into a great turn and burn fighter.  Until the F-15 was ironed out, there really wasn't  anything out there as good as the F-4 as a multirole fighter or an  interceptor.  Thinkof this, it took 2 Fighters to take over the jobs that the F-4 was doing.  That says loads just how good the F-4 was in the 70s.  But by 1980, the F-15 and the F-16 came into their own and the F-4s day was done.  I was heartbroken when they turned them into Target Drones.  Not the way for such a proud bird to go out.
> 
> Now, it's the F-16s day that will end sooner than later.  When they get the number of F-35s in service, I suspect that the F-16s will meet the same fate.  The F-15 will make it a bit longer as there is nothing out there in enough numbers to replace them as of this time.  But it's going to happen.  We just don't know what that will be yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the venerable F-4 made it into the 1990s in the Wild Weasel role?
Click to expand...


The F-4G was introduced in the 70s replacing the Raven. It was still being used into the early 90s but was being slowly  replaced by the F-16 version starting in the 80s.


----------



## DrainBamage

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> I thought the venerable F-4 made it into the 1990s in the Wild Weasel role?


Yep, last one was retired in 1996.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The cost of the F-35A just dropped below 90 Mil.


----------



## westwall

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 218927 View attachment 218928
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The later upgrades to the F-4 got rid of the smoking trails it was famous for.   Plus, the slatted E made it  into a great turn and burn fighter.  Until the F-15 was ironed out, there really wasn't  anything out there as good as the F-4 as a multirole fighter or an  interceptor.  Thinkof this, it took 2 Fighters to take over the jobs that the F-4 was doing.  That says loads just how good the F-4 was in the 70s.  But by 1980, the F-15 and the F-16 came into their own and the F-4s day was done.  I was heartbroken when they turned them into Target Drones.  Not the way for such a proud bird to go out.
> 
> Now, it's the F-16s day that will end sooner than later.  When they get the number of F-35s in service, I suspect that the F-16s will meet the same fate.  The F-15 will make it a bit longer as there is nothing out there in enough numbers to replace them as of this time.  But it's going to happen.  We just don't know what that will be yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the venerable F-4 made it into the 1990s in the Wild Weasel role?
Click to expand...




They did.  There were a couple of squadrons of F-4G's used in Desert Storm.  One was lost due to enemy fire.  It ran out of gas because its fuel tanks had been holed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired.  In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there.  I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 218927 View attachment 218928
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The later upgrades to the F-4 got rid of the smoking trails it was famous for.   Plus, the slatted E made it  into a great turn and burn fighter.  Until the F-15 was ironed out, there really wasn't  anything out there as good as the F-4 as a multirole fighter or an  interceptor.  Thinkof this, it took 2 Fighters to take over the jobs that the F-4 was doing.  That says loads just how good the F-4 was in the 70s.  But by 1980, the F-15 and the F-16 came into their own and the F-4s day was done.  I was heartbroken when they turned them into Target Drones.  Not the way for such a proud bird to go out.
> 
> Now, it's the F-16s day that will end sooner than later.  When they get the number of F-35s in service, I suspect that the F-16s will meet the same fate.  The F-15 will make it a bit longer as there is nothing out there in enough numbers to replace them as of this time.  But it's going to happen.  We just don't know what that will be yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the venerable F-4 made it into the 1990s in the Wild Weasel role?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did.  There were a couple of squadrons of F-4G's used in Desert Storm.  One was lost due to enemy fire.  It ran out of gas because its fuel tanks had been holed.
Click to expand...


The  original F-16 WWs just used the boxes from the F-4G.  It was a poormans WW.  It wasn't until later that the boxes were made specifically for the F-16 that the F-16 WW came into it's own.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for.





Manonthestreet said:


> That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money


And yet another of your posts about the F-35 program turns out to be wrong, DoD has announced they will be upgrading ALL F-35s to the Block 3F full war fighting capability standard. We'll classify this one in same category as your "OMG F-35C in trouble!" claptrap from last year where they fixed what you tried to portray as end-of-program problem with the Navy version by simply adjusting the tension bar.

F-35s Behind, Line Needs More Automation; Services Plan to Mod Early Jets
"Program Executive Officer Vice Adm. Mat Winter also said the military services *have decided to upgrade all their existing jets to the Block 3 standard*, but have not yet decided if they will eventually mod all their jets to a Block 4 configuration."

We see from your post how you purposely spin things, you start with a "might" because there is no solid information on their plan, but by the end are already lamenting how they will be stripped for parts. Seamlessly from speculation to presentation of false information. This is why the forum wonders... have you ever been right about anything in this thread? Like, ever?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet another of your posts about the F-35 program turns out to be wrong, DoD has announced they will be upgrading ALL F-35s to the Block 3F full war fighting capability standard. We'll classify this one in same category as your "OMG F-35C in trouble!" claptrap from last year where they fixed what you tried to portray as end-of-program problem with the Navy version by simply adjusting the tension bar.
> 
> F-35s Behind, Line Needs More Automation; Services Plan to Mod Early Jets
> "Program Executive Officer Vice Adm. Mat Winter also said the military services *have decided to upgrade all their existing jets to the Block 3 standard*, but have not yet decided if they will eventually mod all their jets to a Block 4 configuration."
> 
> We see from your post how you purposely spin things, you start with a "might" because there is no solid information on their plan, but by the end are already lamenting how they will be stripped for parts. Seamlessly from speculation to presentation of false information. This is why the forum wonders... have you ever been right about anything in this thread? Like, ever?
Click to expand...


Monobreath is part right. Some of the103 will be used for parts while others will be used for training.  These will not get the upgrades. Some of the later test birds will be prepped for service and get the upgrades.  Some will be kept for texting and training.  The exact number starts out as 103.  I don't know where he gets the figure of 108 but I bet it was painful pulling it out of there. The Powers that Be haven't announced the exact figures and probably won't.  Well, at least to those as lowly as we are.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> The cost of the F-35A just dropped below 90 Mil.


Something that would have happened with F-22....much better plane.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet another of your posts about the F-35 program turns out to be wrong, DoD has announced they will be upgrading ALL F-35s to the Block 3F full war fighting capability standard. We'll classify this one in same category as your "OMG F-35C in trouble!" claptrap from last year where they fixed what you tried to portray as end-of-program problem with the Navy version by simply adjusting the tension bar.
> 
> F-35s Behind, Line Needs More Automation; Services Plan to Mod Early Jets
> "Program Executive Officer Vice Adm. Mat Winter also said the military services *have decided to upgrade all their existing jets to the Block 3 standard*, but have not yet decided if they will eventually mod all their jets to a Block 4 configuration."
> 
> We see from your post how you purposely spin things, you start with a "might" because there is no solid information on their plan, but by the end are already lamenting how they will be stripped for parts. Seamlessly from speculation to presentation of false information. This is why the forum wonders... have you ever been right about anything in this thread? Like, ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monobreath is part right. Some of the103 will be used for parts while others will be used for training.  These will not get the upgrades. Some of the later test birds will be prepped for service and get the upgrades.  Some will be kept for texting and training.  The exact number starts out as 103.  I don't know where he gets the figure of 108 but I bet it was painful pulling it out of there. The Powers that Be haven't announced the exact figures and probably won't.  Well, at least to those as lowly as we are.
Click to expand...

First I'm wrong then  I'm mostly right.....LLMMAAOOO what a couple of clowns


----------



## Manonthestreet

Still not hitting production levels...ooooops….


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the F-35A just dropped below 90 Mil.
> 
> 
> 
> Something that would have happened with F-22....much better plane.
Click to expand...


The F-22 was designed starting in the late 80s and into the 90s.  It was cutting edge and very expensive.  There were features that had never been done before and cost out the wazzoo.  Even it's  Avionics was space age and out of this world for the time. The best they could get the F-22 down to was 135mil a copy.  That was what the last batch would have cost.  They took what they learned from the F-22 and applied it to the F-35 with the ability to adapt to many different missions and the cost started out for the A model at about what the low ball cost for the F-22 was but it's now down to less than 90 mil.  That's not much above a full featured F-16 and 20 mil cheaper than a new F-15.  And the only bird the F-35 can't smoke is the F-22.  And even on that I am not that sure of since they would never announce it one way or another.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
> How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet another of your posts about the F-35 program turns out to be wrong, DoD has announced they will be upgrading ALL F-35s to the Block 3F full war fighting capability standard. We'll classify this one in same category as your "OMG F-35C in trouble!" claptrap from last year where they fixed what you tried to portray as end-of-program problem with the Navy version by simply adjusting the tension bar.
> 
> F-35s Behind, Line Needs More Automation; Services Plan to Mod Early Jets
> "Program Executive Officer Vice Adm. Mat Winter also said the military services *have decided to upgrade all their existing jets to the Block 3 standard*, but have not yet decided if they will eventually mod all their jets to a Block 4 configuration."
> 
> We see from your post how you purposely spin things, you start with a "might" because there is no solid information on their plan, but by the end are already lamenting how they will be stripped for parts. Seamlessly from speculation to presentation of false information. This is why the forum wonders... have you ever been right about anything in this thread? Like, ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monobreath is part right. Some of the103 will be used for parts while others will be used for training.  These will not get the upgrades. Some of the later test birds will be prepped for service and get the upgrades.  Some will be kept for texting and training.  The exact number starts out as 103.  I don't know where he gets the figure of 108 but I bet it was painful pulling it out of there. The Powers that Be haven't announced the exact figures and probably won't.  Well, at least to those as lowly as we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First I'm wrong then  I'm mostly right.....LLMMAAOOO what a couple of clowns
Click to expand...


I didn't say "Mostly".  I said partially.   Take off the welding glasses and read it again.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Something that would have happened with F-22....much better plane.


F-22 is a better air superiority fighter.

F-35 is a better multi-role fighter bomber, and the second best air superiority fighter in the world.

Your conclusions aren't surprising since you're stupid enough to believe fighters fly combat missions in totally clean configurations and every Russian jet spends it's lifetime at 60k feet on full afterburners.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> I didn't say "Mostly".  I said partially.   Take off the welding glasses and read it again.


He was completely wrong, they have clearly stated they are upgrading all existing F-35s to block 3F.

What is unknown is how many of those will go to block 4.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> And the only bird the F-35 can't smoke is the F-22.  And even on that I am not that sure of since they would never announce it one way or another.


I think at BVR it's a tossup. They both have great AESA radars and passive RF sensors but F-35 has much better 360 degree IR and electro-optical, better sensor fusion, and stronger electronic attack capabilities. F-35s are also networked better, a group of four all see the sum of the battle field from the sensors of the others which makes for really interesting tactics with some flying passive while one is active RF with radar in LPI.

WVR it's F-22 all the way, only advantage, it's far more powerful and agile. F-35 has an advantage with helmet cued AIM-9X but they would have to be carried externally thus affecting performance. Unless of course we go in Manonthestreet's child-like view of air combat where planes can carry drop tanks and 8 big missiles but have zero kinematic penalties, but we'll leave that fantasy world to the king of echo chamber blog links.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the only bird the F-35 can't smoke is the F-22.  And even on that I am not that sure of since they would never announce it one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> I think at BVR it's a tossup. They both have great AESA radars and passive RF sensors but F-35 has much better 360 degree IR and electro-optical, better sensor fusion, and stronger electronic attack capabilities. F-35s are also networked better, a group of four all see the sum of the battle field from the sensors of the others which makes for really interesting tactics with some flying passive while one is active RF with radar in LPI.
> 
> WVR it's F-22 all the way, only advantage, it's far more powerful and agile. F-35 has an advantage with helmet cued AIM-9X but they would have to be carried externally thus affecting performance. Unless of course we go in Manonthestreet's child-like view of air combat where planes can carry drop tanks and 8 big missiles but have zero kinematic penalties, but we'll leave that fantasy world to the king of echo chamber blog links.
Click to expand...


Using the Link 16, the F-22s are also linked.  The only downside is, they can't receive info from other types of AC like the F-35 and the F-15E.  But the F-35 can receive the information from the F-22.  But in the mock battle, let's just say that the F-35 can't use the Link 16 and the F-22 can.  The F-22 has the more powerful radar since it has more than a foot larger radome.  And yes, size does matter no matter what the song says.  At the range that the F-22 will first pick up the F-35 (let's just say for argument sake, it's 35 miles) all the other sensors on the F-35 will not have picked up the F-22 quite yet.  But let's just say at mile 33, the F-35 picks up the F-22.  The F-22 should have a 2 mile buffer to launch or battle  plan. For BVR, the F-22 just barely beats out the F-35.  But at WVR, the F-22 should eat the F-35s lunch as it's only as good as the F-16 or the F-18 at that point.  

Not other Aircraft may apply to this fight as they will be picked up and fired on right around 80 miles beyond where their detection can have any hope of seeing either the F-35 or the F-22.  Occasionally, the F-15E gets to play but he has some might good avionics himself with long ranged weapons and can turn and burn with the best.  The F-15E just has to get past the initial closing with the F-22 and the F-35 getting to fire first.  But remember, in order to fire that Aim-120D, you have to turn on your Radar and that hangs a huge "Hey, Over Here" sign around your neck.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that would have happened with F-22....much better plane.
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 is a better air superiority fighter.
> 
> F-35 is a better multi-role fighter bomber, and the second best air superiority fighter in the world.
> 
> Your conclusions aren't surprising since you're stupid enough to believe fighters fly combat missions in totally clean configurations and every Russian jet spends it's lifetime at 60k feet on full afterburners.
Click to expand...


You left off.........And Plenty of Gas at all times.


----------



## there4eyeM

The very concept of 'manned' ('personned?) fighters is passé. 
Small, many and cheap is the way to go.
Much faster, much more maneuverable, much cheaper remote controlled aircraft without fragile pilots on board should be the rule. As they are not 'sexy' and easy to present to lobbied legislators, we continue to get old way thinking shoved onto us, and our taxes.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> The very concept of 'manned' ('personned?) fighters is passé.
> Small, many and cheap is the way to go.
> Much faster, much more maneuverable, much cheaper remote controlled aircraft without fragile pilots on board should be the rule. As they are not 'sexy' and easy to present to lobbied legislators, we continue to get old way thinking shoved onto us, and our taxes.



You are behind the curve on this one.  The F-35 as of Block 4 has the capability to control a swarm of drones both recon and armed.  But the problem with a armed drone controlled by a human is that it's too easy to jam and be rendered useless.  At some point you are going to need the Human Pilot on the scene which you can't jam.  You may be able to jam his systems but you can never jam the man.


----------



## there4eyeM

Humans are very fragile.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Humans are very fragile.



And even more fragile when you get hit by an out of control armed drone right on the top of your little pumpkin head.


----------



## there4eyeM

America may well find out the truth of this the hard way.


----------



## DrainBamage

The country that spearheaded military use of unmanned aircraft, produces/uses/sells more large combat drones than any other, has accomplished more military strikes from unmanned aircraft by a massive margin, and is currently working on fielding a carrier based unmanned tanker/recon aircraft will find out the hard way about the benefits of unmanned aircraft?


----------



## WorldWatcher

.>

This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.

On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units.  If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.

On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.



How does this jive between the two?  Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.

(I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)


.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> .>
> 
> This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.
> 
> On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units.  If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.
> 
> On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this jive between the two?  Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.
> 
> (I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)
> 
> 
> .>>>>



Those are some really good questions.  Let's  take a look at some of them.

I don't  remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of  the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control.  They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise.  The system took over.  The problem ended up being, the system worked too well.  It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight.  They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control.  This system was abandoned fast.  

AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then.  In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot.  It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or  not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats.  And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions.  It has to be able to protect against it's own survival.  We are not to that point yet as far as I know.  Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .>
> 
> This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.
> 
> On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units.  If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.
> 
> On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this jive between the two?  Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.
> 
> (I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)
> 
> 
> .>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some really good questions.  Let's  take a look at some of them.
> 
> I don't  remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of  the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control.  They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise.  The system took over.  The problem ended up being, the system worked too well.  It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight.  They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control.  This system was abandoned fast.
> 
> AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then.  In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot.  It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or  not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats.  And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions.  It has to be able to protect against it's own survival.  We are not to that point yet as far as I know.  Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.
Click to expand...



That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.



.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .>
> 
> This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.
> 
> On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units.  If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.
> 
> On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this jive between the two?  Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.
> 
> (I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)
> 
> 
> .>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some really good questions.  Let's  take a look at some of them.
> 
> I don't  remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of  the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control.  They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise.  The system took over.  The problem ended up being, the system worked too well.  It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight.  They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control.  This system was abandoned fast.
> 
> AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then.  In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot.  It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or  not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats.  And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions.  It has to be able to protect against it's own survival.  We are not to that point yet as far as I know.  Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> .>>>>
Click to expand...


I can see a real problem with remotely piloted armed vehicles in hot areas.  We can already scramble the other sides RPVs and I imagine they can do the same with ours.  There is currently a need for RPVs both armed and recon but how long that will lost I don't know.  At some point, there will have to be some form of AI added if nothing else, to get it to return to base and to protect itself.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .>
> 
> This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.
> 
> On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units.  If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.
> 
> On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this jive between the two?  Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.
> 
> (I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)
> 
> 
> .>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some really good questions.  Let's  take a look at some of them.
> 
> I don't  remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of  the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control.  They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise.  The system took over.  The problem ended up being, the system worked too well.  It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight.  They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control.  This system was abandoned fast.
> 
> AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then.  In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot.  It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or  not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats.  And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions.  It has to be able to protect against it's own survival.  We are not to that point yet as far as I know.  Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> .>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see a real problem with remotely piloted armed vehicles in hot areas.  We can already scramble the other sides RPVs and I imagine they can do the same with ours.  There is currently a need for RPVs both armed and recon but how long that will lost I don't know.  At some point, there will have to be some form of AI added if nothing else, to get it to return to base and to protect itself.
Click to expand...


This ex-E2|EP-3|ES-3 in-flight tech, radar operator, & EWOP thanks you for your thoughts.


.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .>
> 
> This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.
> 
> On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units.  If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.
> 
> On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this jive between the two?  Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.
> 
> (I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)
> 
> 
> .>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some really good questions.  Let's  take a look at some of them.
> 
> I don't  remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of  the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control.  They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise.  The system took over.  The problem ended up being, the system worked too well.  It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight.  They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control.  This system was abandoned fast.
> 
> AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then.  In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot.  It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or  not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats.  And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions.  It has to be able to protect against it's own survival.  We are not to that point yet as far as I know.  Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> .>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see a real problem with remotely piloted armed vehicles in hot areas.  We can already scramble the other sides RPVs and I imagine they can do the same with ours.  There is currently a need for RPVs both armed and recon but how long that will lost I don't know.  At some point, there will have to be some form of AI added if nothing else, to get it to return to base and to protect itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This ex-E2|EP-3|ES-3 in-flight tech, radar operator, & EWOP thanks you for your thoughts.
> 
> 
> .>>>>
Click to expand...


Well, you are more the expert here than I am.  How about let's hear your thoughts on this subject.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> Well, you are more the expert here than I am.  How about let's hear your thoughts on this subject.




My first thoughts as an ELINT guy (admittedly from many years ago) was...

If it transmits I can find it.

If I can find it I can track it.

If I can track it I can kill it.


.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are more the expert here than I am.  How about let's hear your thoughts on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first thoughts as an ELINT guy (admittedly from many years ago) was...
> 
> If it transmits I can find it.
> 
> If I can find it I can track it.
> 
> If I can track it I can kill it.
> 
> 
> .>>>>
Click to expand...


Well said.  If someone comes up with a method just use a dirty jamming method like the Soviets used in the 60s and 70s.  If you don't need to use it and your enemy does, jam it all.  Yes, you can see the dirty jammer but little else.  It becomes a IR search war at that point.  And all your links, radios, radars and such become worthless.  It takes it almost back to the 1930s. Right now, the Russians have an advantage with IR tracking so they just might benefit from doing this.


----------



## DrainBamage

It's not quite as simple as "hah I've jammed everything in the area" because emitting noise over a wider range reduces the power at any given frequency, and it's always a matter of at what range the power of the radar is stronger than the power of the jammer. If you're using sweep jamming it won't be as effective against AESA radars that are changing freqs hundres/thousands of times per second.

You're also screaming out to everyone where you are, and modern versions of HARM, AMRAAM, and even SDB can home on jam.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> It's not quite as simple as "hah I've jammed everything in the area" because emitting noise over a wider range reduces the power at any given frequency, and it's always a matter of at what range the power of the radar is stronger than the power of the jammer. If you're using sweep jamming it won't be as effective against AESA radars that are changing freqs hundres/thousands of times per second.
> 
> You're also screaming out to everyone where you are, and modern versions of HARM, AMRAAM, and even SDB can home on jam.



You don't just jam one freq.  You jam them all.  The Soviets had a hopped up Mig-23 with suped up generators on board that did exactly that.  It played hell with everyones Radar including theirs.  Of course, one would be okay behind it but ahead of it, it jammed everything.  It reduces the Air Battle to WVR only on both sides.  I wonder if the Russians still have a couple or three of those things still around.  You don't hear too much about them anymore.

What makes the F-35s Radar so powerful is that it does have more electric power than any other fighter.  This is also why it can overload the other guys radar as of Block 4.  This is also why the F-35A is the be the most likely to receive the Military Laser they are developing for a fighter.  In the 60s and 70s, the Mig-23Jammer had the most juice of all the fighters.  Not so anymore.  But who is to say that the Russians can't hop up a SU-35 with the hotter engines increasing the generator power and remake a modern version of the old Mig-23 Jammer.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You don't just jam one freq.  You jam them all.


I know this, that's why I said jam everything. You can jam everything by either barrage on all frequencies or by a constant sweep across all of them, but for the former since you're spreading your power across all frequencies at the same time it's effectiveness drops much more sharply with changes in range. Modern AESA radars are far too powerful and with too much range for a barrage jam from another aircraft to reduce the entire airspace into a WVR fight, since the point where radar can burn through the jam, i.e. enough signal to overcome the noise,  can be at BVR and just makes the jamming source a target for an AMRAAM going HOJ.

Jamming also doesn't eliminate passive detection, a plane throwing all that RF noise out is screaming "here I am" to a plane with good passive RF detection, and radars like APG-77 and APG-81 can function in passive mode to further analyze and attempt to get range data on an RF source and again an AMRAAM could be coming up the jammer's tailpipe from a pair of F-22s it never saw.



Daryl Hunt said:


> What makes the F-35s Radar so powerful is that it does have more electric power than any other fighter.


It's more than generated power of the plane, it's the nature of AESA radars where there are many small power sources for the individual modules instead of a massive high voltage power supply for a single emitter.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't just jam one freq.  You jam them all.
> 
> 
> 
> I know this, that's why I said jam everything. You can jam everything by either barrage on all frequencies or by a constant sweep across all of them, but for the former since you're spreading your power across all frequencies at the same time it's effectiveness drops much more sharply with changes in range. Modern AESA radars are far too powerful and with too much range for a barrage jam from another aircraft to reduce the entire airspace into a WVR fight, since the point where radar can burn through the jam, i.e. enough signal to overcome the noise,  can be at BVR and just makes the jamming source a target for an AMRAAM going HOJ.
> 
> Jamming also doesn't eliminate passive detection, a plane throwing all that RF noise out is screaming "here I am" to a plane with good passive RF detection, and radars like APG-77 and APG-81 can function in passive mode to further analyze and attempt to get range data on an RF source and again an AMRAAM could be coming up the jammer's tailpipe from a pair of F-22s it never saw.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes the F-35s Radar so powerful is that it does have more electric power than any other fighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more than generated power of the plane, it's the nature of AESA radars where there are many small power sources for the individual modules instead of a massive high voltage power supply for a single emitter.
Click to expand...


It actually takes less power to jam than the power from the Radar.  And the Aim-120 has a problem with the jamming like that.  Shoot, the SU-35 is able to jam X number of them coming in so you will have to send in quite a few to get a kill.   So, all the jammer has to do is degrade your radar range until it's within WVR which is close to 20 miles.   A good pilot can pick up another AC inside of 20 miles visually and the IR sensors can do it at up to 35 miles depending.  The F-22 will be shorter than that as it's heat signature is low but the F-35 heat signature isn't any better than any other fighter so it's going to get picked up passively at 35 miles.  It's now an IR missile fight and all things are equal on both sides.  The only Fighter with the advantage is the F-22.

The F-35A is designed to have more generator power than any other fighter and most bombers.  It automatically finds your Radar Transmitter Frequencies and sends a real powerful pulse back down the tube and it can silence or, in some cases, burn out the radar site or radar on the other fighters.  It does it by POWER by using it's AESA radar to transmit on their frequencies.  It will be less affective against other AESA radars but the PESA radars and ground radar are in serious jeopardy.  This is a threat right now but in time, it won't be as the Russians and Chinese harden against it.  But for now, their crappy radar can be knocked out by the F-35A.  And when they get the F-35C in service, it will have that capability.  And when they upgrade the F-35B to the Block  4 then it will have that capability.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> It actually takes less power to jam than the power from the Radar.  And the Aim-120 has a problem with the jamming like that.  Shoot, the SU-35 is able to jam X number of them coming in so you will have to send in quite a few to get a kill.   So, all the jammer has to do is degrade your radar range until it's within WVR which is close to 20 miles.   A good pilot can pick up another AC inside of 20 miles visually and the IR sensors can do it at up to 35 miles depending.  The F-22 will be shorter than that as it's heat signature is low but the F-35 heat signature isn't any better than any other fighter so it's going to get picked up passively at 35 miles.  It's now an IR missile fight and all things are equal on both sides.  The only Fighter with the advantage is the F-22.


Correct, it takes less power to jam than the power from the radar. However for a more powerful radar source there is always a range where the radar burns through, and an aircraft mounted jammer spreading it's signal across the entire freq band will weaker than a modern fighter jet's radar at the narrow frequency it's broadcasting. There are a lot of variables that go into the equation (many of which are classified) but there is always a point where radar wins and attemtping to barrage jam makes the range at which the radar wins that much greater due to advantages in power spread. For example, someone in the backseat of a Growler can jam an opposing radar at much greater distance by focusing their energy to match the radar freq of an opposing emitter than he could by just spreading it over the entire spectrum.

SU-35 isn't jamming the AMRAAMs because they are using HOJ not active radar, the very fact it's jamming is what is guiding the missiles to it. That's like saying a IADS radar will be jamming the incoming HARMs, they don't try to jam passively guided missiles they have to shut off or die. It would be like trying to shine the flashlight in the face of someone with a gun at night. A pair of F-35s would very quickly triangulate a jamming source at BVR and have AMRAAMs in the air homing in on that energy.



Daryl Hunt said:


> The F-35A is designed to have more generator power than any other fighter and most bombers.


And AESA radars, by their very fundamental design nature, can output more power in relation to the generating capacity of their power source. Simply put, an aircraft with a certain power generation ability would be able to send stronger signals with an AESA radar than a PESA. The PESA radar has a single high power amplifier that is heavy and requires extensive cooling, whereas AESA has thousands of smaller solid state modules that are more efficient power-wise and don't have the same cooling requirements drawing power.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually takes less power to jam than the power from the Radar.  And the Aim-120 has a problem with the jamming like that.  Shoot, the SU-35 is able to jam X number of them coming in so you will have to send in quite a few to get a kill.   So, all the jammer has to do is degrade your radar range until it's within WVR which is close to 20 miles.   A good pilot can pick up another AC inside of 20 miles visually and the IR sensors can do it at up to 35 miles depending.  The F-22 will be shorter than that as it's heat signature is low but the F-35 heat signature isn't any better than any other fighter so it's going to get picked up passively at 35 miles.  It's now an IR missile fight and all things are equal on both sides.  The only Fighter with the advantage is the F-22.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, it takes less power to jam than the power from the radar. However for a more powerful radar source there is always a range where the radar burns through, and an aircraft mounted jammer spreading it's signal across the entire freq band will weaker than a modern fighter jet's radar at the narrow frequency it's broadcasting. There are a lot of variables that go into the equation (many of which are classified) but there is always a point where radar wins and attemtping to barrage jam makes the range at which the radar wins that much greater due to advantages in power spread. For example, someone in the backseat of a Growler can jam an opposing radar at much greater distance by focusing their energy to match the radar freq of an opposing emitter than he could by just spreading it over the entire spectrum.
> 
> SU-35 isn't jamming the AMRAAMs because they are using HOJ not active radar, the very fact it's jamming is what is guiding the missiles to it. That's like saying a IADS radar will be jamming the incoming HARMs, they don't try to jam passively guided missiles they have to shut off or die. It would be like trying to shine the flashlight in the face of someone with a gun at night. A pair of F-35s would very quickly triangulate a jamming source at BVR and have AMRAAMs in the air homing in on that energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35A is designed to have more generator power than any other fighter and most bombers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And AESA radars, by their very fundamental design nature, can output more power in relation to the generating capacity of their power source. Simply put, an aircraft with a certain power generation ability would be able to send stronger signals with an AESA radar than a PESA. The PESA radar has a single high power amplifier that is heavy and requires extensive cooling, whereas AESA has thousands of smaller solid state modules that are more efficient power-wise and don't have the same cooling requirements drawing power.
Click to expand...


You buld it, I can build to jam it.  It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You buld it, I can build to jam it.  It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.


Walk me through it.

You're in a fighter with a big jamming pod making all kinds of RF noise. A pair of F-35s pick up all this RF from way far away using passive sensors and triangulate your location, then launch a pair of AMRAAMs since F-35s can cue missiles with passively derived data instead of their radar, and the missiles use HOJ so they don't need their active seeker either. 

Now you have AMRAAMs coming that you can't see because you're made the battlespace around you non-permissive for radars, but they can see you because they are passively homing in on the source of all that RF noise, your fighter. How exactly are you jamming passive missiles? There is no radar signal to jam.

That would be like a SAM site jamming a HARM, they can't because they HARM is passively seeking their IADS radar. To save their asses they turn it off.


----------



## Windparadox

`
Meanwhile; *All US F-35s grounded worldwide* (Oct 11, 2018) - _The Pentagon announced Thursday it is grounding its entire fleet of F-35s, just days after the first crash of an F-35B led investigators to suspect there is a widespread problem with the advanced fighter’s fuel tubes. “The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft,” the F-35 Joint Program Office announced in a statement Thursday morning._
`


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You buld it, I can build to jam it.  It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.
> 
> 
> 
> Walk me through it.
> 
> You're in a fighter with a big jamming pod making all kinds of RF noise. A pair of F-35s pick up all this RF from way far away using passive sensors and triangulate your location, then launch a pair of AMRAAMs since F-35s can cue missiles with passively derived data instead of their radar, and the missiles use HOJ so they don't need their active seeker either.
> 
> Now you have AMRAAMs coming that you can't see because you're made the battlespace around you non-permissive for radars, but they can see you because they are passively homing in on the source of all that RF noise, your fighter. How exactly are you jamming passive missiles? There is no radar signal to jam.
> 
> That would be like a SAM site jamming a HARM, they can't because they HARM is passively seeking their IADS radar. To save their asses they turn it off.
> /QUOTE]
Click to expand...


Your missile comes off just like it was designed to.  It tracks just fine.  Until it get within 20 miles.  At that point, since all the freqs are jammed, it goes terminal.  You are missing point here.  If you build it, I can build a way to defeat it.  You are doing a Monopad routine here and giving the one side all of the advantages and treating the other side like they are a bunch of idiots.  Yes you can see it but you are going to have to come within 20 miles of it to use IR Aim-9 missiles to shoot it.  And if you are that close, guess what, the other side is also tracking you with their IR detectors and are able to fire as well.  All they have to do is to break the link at some point between the Amraam and the F-35 anywhere along the flight of the missile to defeat the missile.  And the Radar on board the Amraam won't be strong enough to take it all the way in.  I don't have to have a stronger radar jammer than you have for your radar.  I just have to have enough to break the chain anywhere along the flight.  Contrary to what you believe, the F-35 can be defeated.  It won't always win.  It just has a higher rate of win than most, that's all.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You buld it, I can build to jam it.  It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.
> 
> 
> 
> Walk me through it.
> 
> You're in a fighter with a big jamming pod making all kinds of RF noise. A pair of F-35s pick up all this RF from way far away using passive sensors and triangulate your location, then launch a pair of AMRAAMs since F-35s can cue missiles with passively derived data instead of their radar, and the missiles use HOJ so they don't need their active seeker either.
> 
> Now you have AMRAAMs coming that you can't see because you're made the battlespace around you non-permissive for radars, but they can see you because they are passively homing in on the source of all that RF noise, your fighter. How exactly are you jamming passive missiles? There is no radar signal to jam.
> 
> That would be like a SAM site jamming a HARM, they can't because they HARM is passively seeking their IADS radar. To save their asses they turn it off.
Click to expand...


Oh, and btw, the old Mig-23 Jammer didn't carry just Pods.  He was built from the ground up as a jammer.  His entire Being was Jammer.  He didn't carry missiles or guns.  As far as I know, they were never used in War since they were only designed to be used against Nato and that just never happened.  It was just a small blip in history.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Windparadox said:


> `
> Meanwhile; *All US F-35s grounded worldwide* (Oct 11, 2018) - _The Pentagon announced Thursday it is grounding its entire fleet of F-35s, just days after the first crash of an F-35B led investigators to suspect there is a widespread problem with the advanced fighter’s fuel tubes. “The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft,” the F-35 Joint Program Office announced in a statement Thursday morning._
> `



The F-35B was not grounded.  So not ALL were grounded.  The B model uses an engine slightly different than the A and the C and might have had a different fuel tube.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Your missile comes off just like it was designed to.  It tracks just fine.  Until it get within 20 miles.  At that point, since all the freqs are jammed, it goes terminal.


Do you know what home on jam is? The way you're explaining this indicates you do not.

HOJ was added to the AMRAAM to defeat exactly what you're describing. The RF noise you're emitting to jam everything is exactly what the AMRAAM is homing in on passively. You keep saying you're going to jam the missile's active radar but the missile isn't using active radar to find you, so there is nothing to jam. It will interlace active radar pulses with passive HOJ guidance kit and switch back and forth as needed, as long as you're emitting RF noise it's coming for you passively and you can't jam it.



Daryl Hunt said:


> You are doing a Monopad routine here and giving the one side all of the advantages and treating the other side like they are a bunch of idiots.


This is a cop-out. Manonthestreet comes into the thread to say something idiotic like "F-35 too slow can't fight meh" then doesn't stick around to defend his argument because he can't. I'm responding to everything you're saying and trying my best to understand how you think you're barrage jamming a missile that is HOJ. It makes no sense.




Daryl Hunt said:


> Yes you can see it but you are going to have to come within 20 miles of it to use IR Aim-9 missiles to shoot it.


Nope. AMRAAMs range is longer than 20 miles, and no matter what you believe you aren't jamming a missile that isn't using active radar to target you. Here, via google:

Home-on-jam is a form of passive radar homing used by missiles. It is usually added as an auxiliary guidance mode for missiles equipped with active or semi-active radar guidance. Normally, when a missile is being jammed by a hostile electronic warfare system, it sees nothing but static and useless noise, since the returns that it should be homing in on are being drowned out by the jamming signal. However, the interference source itself can be detected quite clearly. The problem is that most radar guidance systems aren't designed to look for it. With just a minor software tweak, however, most radar seekers can be programmed to home in on the source of interference when they're being jammed. This effectively neutralizes jamming as an effective means of missile defense.

There are ways to defeat HOJ, examples would be spoofing and disposable decoys but neither of this fits in this gameplane you describe of just jamming everything to make the entire battlespace WVR.




Daryl Hunt said:


> All they have to do is to break the link at some point between the Amraam and the F-35 anywhere along the flight of the missile to defeat the missile.  And the Radar on board the Amraam won't be strong enough to take it all the way in.  I don't have to have a stronger radar jammer than you have for your radar.  I just have to have enough to break the chain anywhere along the flight.


What chain? All the F-35 needs is enough information about your location to cue the missile in the right direction, it can do this passively because (like the F-22) it has antennas embedded in various parts of the aircraft and the computing power to use their offsetting signals of your RF noise to triangulate your position. You send out RF noise to jam, F-35 (or F-22) sees you from really far away while you cannot see him.




Daryl Hunt said:


> Contrary to what you believe, the F-35 can be defeated.  It won't always win.  It just has a higher rate of win than most, that's all.


I don't believe F-35 cannot be defeated, and I never said it cannot be defeated, so you're attacking a straw man here by manufacturing opinions for me to argue against. An F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. can all fire an AMRAAM that switches to HOJ to defeat an ECM emitting target.

All I said was this scenario of jamming every frequency making the battlefield a WVR fight doesn't exist in today's battlefield.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your missile comes off just like it was designed to.  It tracks just fine.  Until it get within 20 miles.  At that point, since all the freqs are jammed, it goes terminal.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what home on jam is? The way you're explaining this indicates you do not.
> 
> HOJ was added to the AMRAAM to defeat exactly what you're describing. The RF noise you're emitting to jam everything is exactly what the AMRAAM is homing in on passively. You keep saying you're going to jam the missile's active radar but the missile isn't using active radar to find you, so there is nothing to jam. It will interlace active radar pulses with passive HOJ guidance kit and switch back and forth as needed, as long as you're emitting RF noise it's coming for you passively and you can't jam it.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are doing a Monopad routine here and giving the one side all of the advantages and treating the other side like they are a bunch of idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a cop-out. Manonthestreet comes into the thread to say something idiotic like "F-35 too slow can't fight meh" then doesn't stick around to defend his argument because he can't. I'm responding to everything you're saying and trying my best to understand how you think you're barrage jamming a missile that is HOJ. It makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can see it but you are going to have to come within 20 miles of it to use IR Aim-9 missiles to shoot it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. AMRAAMs range is longer than 20 miles, and no matter what you believe you aren't jamming a missile that isn't using active radar to target you. Here, via google:
> 
> Home-on-jam is a form of passive radar homing used by missiles. It is usually added as an auxiliary guidance mode for missiles equipped with active or semi-active radar guidance. Normally, when a missile is being jammed by a hostile electronic warfare system, it sees nothing but static and useless noise, since the returns that it should be homing in on are being drowned out by the jamming signal. However, the interference source itself can be detected quite clearly. The problem is that most radar guidance systems aren't designed to look for it. With just a minor software tweak, however, most radar seekers can be programmed to home in on the source of interference when they're being jammed. This effectively neutralizes jamming as an effective means of missile defense.
> 
> There are ways to defeat HOJ, examples would be spoofing and disposable decoys but neither of this fits in this gameplane you describe of just jamming everything to make the entire battlespace WVR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All they have to do is to break the link at some point between the Amraam and the F-35 anywhere along the flight of the missile to defeat the missile.  And the Radar on board the Amraam won't be strong enough to take it all the way in.  I don't have to have a stronger radar jammer than you have for your radar.  I just have to have enough to break the chain anywhere along the flight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What chain? All the F-35 needs is enough information about your location to cue the missile in the right direction, it can do this passively because (like the F-22) it has antennas embedded in various parts of the aircraft and the computing power to use their offsetting signals of your RF noise to triangulate your position. You send out RF noise to jam, F-35 (or F-22) sees you from really far away while you cannot see him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to what you believe, the F-35 can be defeated.  It won't always win.  It just has a higher rate of win than most, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe F-35 cannot be defeated, and I never said it cannot be defeated, so you're attacking a straw man here by manufacturing opinions for me to argue against. An F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. can all fire an AMRAAM that switches to HOJ to defeat an ECM emitting target.
> 
> All I said was this scenario of jamming every frequency making the battlefield a WVR fight doesn't exist in today's battlefield.
Click to expand...


Easy answer this one.  Pulse the jammer signal in certain intervals.  The Amraam loses it's targeting info and goes ballistic.  It's not like the Harm that will lose the signal and be able to loiter until it picks something up again.  You are going to have to get closer to have any chance of actually hitting anything with your Amraam with a full spectrum Jammer in the mix.  Yes, you know the Jammer is there.  Yes, he stands out like a sore thumb.  But you are going to have to get within IR range to actually attack it with any semblance of a chance to kill it.  That means, you are going to have to be within at least 35 miles.  And the SU-35 can pick your F-35 up at that range, target it and fire on it with it's own IR missiles.  At that point, the Jammer has done his job and boogies for home.  You keep assuming that the Jammer is going to be flying in a straight line, not changing altitudes. And there will be only one.

Just remember, he doesn't have to defeat your Radar, he just has to diminish it where you have to get closer to get lock on.  Instead of 80 miles, that distance may be degraded to 35 miles and you are now in an IR fight that the Russians are very, very good at.  The US is just starting to catch up on getting the IR pods into the field to play that kind of game. 

BTW, the F-35A is very capable of operating as a full spectrum Jammer.  I don't see any reason there isn't at least a few SU-35s capable of doing the same thing.  It's not a hard thing to do and hasn't been since right after Radar was invented and someone said, "Hey, we really should jam that thing".


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Easy answer this one.  Pulse the jammer signal in certain intervals.  The Amraam loses it's targeting info and goes ballistic.


AMRAAMs in HOJ switch back and forth seamlessly from active radar to passive home on jam if they lose the signal, they don't just decide to go ballistic if they lose the jamming source.




Daryl Hunt said:


> You are going to have to get closer to have any chance of actually hitting anything with your Amraam with a full spectrum Jammer in the mix.


Absolutely not.  You keep drawing this conclusion based on a misunderstanding of how modern air-to-air missiles with HOJ capability work.

Here is something from before it was a reality, back in 1998:

The US Air Force is developing a secondary passive anti-radiation seeker for the Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Passive Adjunct Seeker Antenna project is led by the USAF's Wright Laboratories Armament Directorate. A demonstration of the passive seeker antenna has already been carried out, says the USAF research organisation. A passive adjunct seeker would provide the AMRAAM with a dual-mode capability. At present, the AIM-120 relies on its active radar seeker for final target acquisition and terminal guidance.

A secondary seeker would allow for the passively guided launch of an AIM-120 against a target aircraft when the latter's air-intercept radar is emitting. Such an engagement would not require the launch aircraft to use its own radar, *with the AMRAAM's passive seeker homing on the radio frequency energy from the target radar. Were the target aircraft's radar to be turned off, then the AMRAAM could revert to the active seeker to relocate it.*





Daryl Hunt said:


> You keep assuming that the Jammer is going to be flying in a straight line, not changing altitudes. And there will be only one.


I've not assumed this at all. Every jammer can be targeted, as long as it's sending RF noise to be tracked or not emitting thus visible on an active radar it can have a missile sent it's way whether it's moving or not. I have no idea why you think a missile homing in on a RF source can only do only to a static location.




Daryl Hunt said:


> Just remember, he doesn't have to defeat your Radar, he just has to diminish it where you have to get closer to get lock on.  Instead of 80 miles, that distance may be degraded to 35 miles and you are now in an IR fight that the Russians are very, very good at.  The US is just starting to catch up on getting the IR pods into the field to play that kind of game.


You keep talking about a radar, but it's a game of passive detection. A F-35 or F-22 can passively detect an RF source, jamming is the source so you're not going to defeat a radar because it isn't using an active radar to detect you. It's using antennas that are embedded at different points on the plane. They can also cue an AMRAAM passively. You can take the radar out of the picture (which the jammer does) and still be detected and targeted at BVR.




Daryl Hunt said:


> BTW, the F-35A is very capable of operating as a full spectrum Jammer.  I don't see any reason there isn't at least a few SU-35s capable of doing the same thing.  It's not a hard thing to do and hasn't been since right after Radar was invented and someone said, "Hey, we really should jam that thing".


I'm not doubting an SU-35 can operate a full spectrum jammer, I'm doubting that they can jam the entire spectrum and be immune to BVR attack. It worked decades ago when everything was semi-active or active radar for guidance at long ranges, but today's HOJ capable missiles aren't going to be blinded or defeated by barrage jamming. It makes the jammers the targets.


----------



## there4eyeM

Masses of little drones can hover or circle and await their chance. They can overcome by shear, cheap numbers. They don't have to eat, sleep, urinate. They can't be poisoned, blinded by lasers, or get distracted thinking about sex.
Remember WWII. The Sherman was no match for a Tiger, but four or five were and the U.S. produced enormous quantities the Germans couldn't come close to equaling. Unfortunately, the crews suffered horribly. Drones avoid that. There is nothing being sacrificed but some metal and circuitry.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy answer this one.  Pulse the jammer signal in certain intervals.  The Amraam loses it's targeting info and goes ballistic.
> 
> 
> 
> AMRAAMs in HOJ switch back and forth seamlessly from active radar to passive home on jam if they lose the signal, they don't just decide to go ballistic if they lose the jamming source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to have to get closer to have any chance of actually hitting anything with your Amraam with a full spectrum Jammer in the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  You keep drawing this conclusion based on a misunderstanding of how modern air-to-air missiles with HOJ capability work.
> 
> Here is something from before it was a reality, back in 1998:
> 
> The US Air Force is developing a secondary passive anti-radiation seeker for the Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Passive Adjunct Seeker Antenna project is led by the USAF's Wright Laboratories Armament Directorate. A demonstration of the passive seeker antenna has already been carried out, says the USAF research organisation. A passive adjunct seeker would provide the AMRAAM with a dual-mode capability. At present, the AIM-120 relies on its active radar seeker for final target acquisition and terminal guidance.
> 
> A secondary seeker would allow for the passively guided launch of an AIM-120 against a target aircraft when the latter's air-intercept radar is emitting. Such an engagement would not require the launch aircraft to use its own radar, *with the AMRAAM's passive seeker homing on the radio frequency energy from the target radar. Were the target aircraft's radar to be turned off, then the AMRAAM could revert to the active seeker to relocate it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep assuming that the Jammer is going to be flying in a straight line, not changing altitudes. And there will be only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've not assumed this at all. Every jammer can be targeted, as long as it's sending RF noise to be tracked or not emitting thus visible on an active radar it can have a missile sent it's way whether it's moving or not. I have no idea why you think a missile homing in on a RF source can only do only to a static location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just remember, he doesn't have to defeat your Radar, he just has to diminish it where you have to get closer to get lock on.  Instead of 80 miles, that distance may be degraded to 35 miles and you are now in an IR fight that the Russians are very, very good at.  The US is just starting to catch up on getting the IR pods into the field to play that kind of game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep talking about a radar, but it's a game of passive detection. A F-35 or F-22 can passively detect an RF source, jamming is the source so you're not going to defeat a radar because it isn't using an active radar to detect you. It's using antennas that are embedded at different points on the plane. They can also cue an AMRAAM passively. You can take the radar out of the picture (which the jammer does) and still be detected and targeted at BVR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the F-35A is very capable of operating as a full spectrum Jammer.  I don't see any reason there isn't at least a few SU-35s capable of doing the same thing.  It's not a hard thing to do and hasn't been since right after Radar was invented and someone said, "Hey, we really should jam that thing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not doubting an SU-35 can operate a full spectrum jammer, I'm doubting that they can jam the entire spectrum and be immune to BVR attack. It worked decades ago when everything was semi-active or active radar for guidance at long ranges, but today's HOJ capable missiles aren't going to be blinded or defeated by barrage jamming. It makes the jammers the targets.
Click to expand...


They don't have to.  They do have advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers installed just like the EF-18Gs do.  The HOJ gets mighty confused when the return it receives it that of a clear blue sky.  This doesn't mean that all missiles will be defeated but it does mean that you are going to have to launch a bunch of them to get the kill.  And you are going to have to get closer to do it since even the AESA is affected by the DRFM.  Almost all SU-35s and many SU-27 carries the DRFM.  Now, throw into the mix the dirty jammer with the DRFM as part of it's package.  To give you an idea on how successful the DRFM is, in war games, the EF-18 has forced the F-22 into a WVR role.  Of course, the EF isn't alone since it will also be accompanied by a few F-18E/Fs.  The F-22 can then be overpowered by numbers.  The Allies, Russians and Chinese have DRFM so it really complicates things.  Raethon is working to defeat the DRFM but they have not been able to do so quite yet.  While the DRFM is not infallible, it greatly reduces the ranges and number of kills per weapons. 

Like I said, you build the system and I will build a system to defeat or degrade your system.  Just remember, the Russians have a lot more birds with the DRFM installed than we have with that hot new AESA radar.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Masses of little drones can hover or circle and await their chance. They can overcome by shear, cheap numbers. They don't have to eat, sleep, urinate. They can't be poisoned, blinded by lasers, or get distracted thinking about sex.
> Remember WWII. The Sherman was no match for a Tiger, but four or five were and the U.S. produced enormous quantities the Germans couldn't come close to equaling. Unfortunately, the crews suffered horribly. Drones avoid that. There is nothing being sacrificed but some metal and circuitry.



As of Block 4 for the F-35A, it can control drone swarms.  What you are saying sounds just like it was taken from a good Science Fiction Novel or Movie.  But it's closer than we think to happening.


----------



## WorldWatcher

.>


Thank you guys for a stimulating thread, I've followed it for a long time.

So my question is, will/could the F-35 integrate something like this -->> (Radar missile decoys will draw enemy missiles away from RAF jets)

Basically an RF decoy.

Deploy the decoy, go EMCON, and have an inbound missile track to it instead of the aircraft.

Current status?

.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> .>
> 
> 
> Thank you guys for a stimulating thread, I've followed it for a long time.
> 
> So my question is, will/could the F-35 integrate something like this -->> (Radar missile decoys will draw enemy missiles away from RAF jets)
> 
> Basically an RF decoy.
> 
> Deploy the decoy, go EMCON, and have an inbound missile track to it instead of the aircraft.
> 
> Current status?
> 
> .>>>>



They are trying to find a better replacement for the Chaff and Flares.  It may work for a Chaff replacement but there is nothing better than a good old fashion Magnesium flare.  According to the Brits, it's being developed.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> They don't have to.  They do have advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers installed just like the EF-18Gs do.


Yes, DRFM would work but then you're talking about something completely different than barrage jamming. When you're using DRFM you're focusing on the exact frequency of the target radar, storing the signal to send back as a spoof. How do you think you're making the entire battlespace WVR if your jamming pod has to focus on the active radar seeker of a single AMRAAM? You can't use barrage jamming at the same time because that noise would negate what your deceptive is trying to do, and the HOJ missile would just go after the barrage jamming source. You lose the benefit of DRFM spoofing your position if you're aircraft is barrage jamming at same time, because all that noise screams "here I am!" to aircraft with good passive sensors.




Daryl Hunt said:


> And you are going to have to get closer to do it since even the AESA is affected by the DRFM


You just said you're barrage jamming too, the F-35/F-22 knows where you are from this, it doesn't need the AESA.




Daryl Hunt said:


> To give you an idea on how successful the DRFM is, in war games, the EF-18 has forced the F-22 into a WVR role.  Of course, the EF isn't alone since it will also be accompanied by a few F-18E/Fs.  The F-22 can then be overpowered by numbers.


Do you have a source for this?




Daryl Hunt said:


> Like I said, you build the system and I will build a system to defeat or degrade your system.


You haven't yet. You've just said a lot of often contradictory things and not being able to support your argument that barrage jamming can make an entire battlespace a WVR fight.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have to.  They do have advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers installed just like the EF-18Gs do.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, DRFM would work but then you're talking about something completely different than barrage jamming. When you're using DRFM you're focusing on the exact frequency of the target radar, storing the signal to send back as a spoof. How do you think you're making the entire battlespace WVR if your jamming pod has to focus on the active radar seeker of a single AMRAAM? You can't use barrage jamming at the same time because that noise would negate what your deceptive is trying to do, and the HOJ missile would just go after the barrage jamming source. You lose the benefit of DRFM spoofing your position if you're aircraft is barrage jamming at same time, because all that noise screams "here I am!" to aircraft with good passive sensors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are going to have to get closer to do it since even the AESA is affected by the DRFM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just said you're barrage jamming too, the F-35/F-22 knows where you are from this, it doesn't need the AESA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> To give you an idea on how successful the DRFM is, in war games, the EF-18 has forced the F-22 into a WVR role.  Of course, the EF isn't alone since it will also be accompanied by a few F-18E/Fs.  The F-22 can then be overpowered by numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a source for this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you build the system and I will build a system to defeat or degrade your system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't yet. You've just said a lot of often contradictory things and not being able to support your argument that barrage jamming can make an entire battlespace a WVR fight.
Click to expand...



There is only one sure fired way to prove any of this.  You can listen to experience or the US and Russia can go to war against each other.  You are using the old adage, You have everything and the enemy will have just one and you will win.   A Dirty Jammer will NEVER be used by itself.  Much like sending in an specific mission bird in by itself other than a Strategic Bomber only because no fighter has the range to hang with any of the Bombers.  You honestly believe that the EF-18G won't stand out like a sore thumb against Russias Best?  But the F-35C and B will hang back and use it's bag of tricks in support of the Growler.

Even the US uses dirty jammers.  We have Aircraft that can shutdown an entire area of not only any form of radar but stop the use of cell phones, and anything signal that goes through the air regardless of what frequency.  And one of the easiest to block is the X band that the Amraam uses to home in with when it finally gets close enough to take command.  I don't need a cite on this.  I have experience, you don't.  And our visiting Elint Troop would be able to do this as well with his toys.  No Radar or Signal has ever been made that cannot be defeated and never will be unless someone reinvents the laws of Physics.

You want cites?  Then I suggest you give them.  You haven't given any yourself and yet you demand that I give them.  Nope, I give you over 20 years experience being around a lot of different missioned Aircraft including the F, C, B, AC, RC and EC types.  I know some of what they can do.  But I don't know all of what they can do and even if I did, I wouldn't  broadcast it and expect to not be doing a lengthy stay in Military Club Fed.  You want proof whether it can be done or not?  Start a war, enlist, put your own ass or your own Sons ass on the line instead of sending someone elses.

You keep screaming over and over that the US has Aesa Radar.  Newsflash:  So does Russia.  The Mig-35 packs the Zhuk-AME FGA 50 and they are considering upgrading the SU-35 to it.  But in order to do that upgrade on the SU, it's going to take a considerable more upgrading than normal so they might be calling it a SU-40 or something like that.  But it's coming.  And already on the Mig-35 who designed from the ground up after the Zhuk-AME FGA 50 was made available.  The SU-35 was designed before it was made available.  You want a cite on that?  I suggest you go look it up yourself.  I don't play the old "Cite, Cite" crap game very well.

I can always tell when someone is in serious trouble.  They either fall back on the insults or the "Cite" routine.  And that is where you are right now.  Move on.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You are using the old adage, You have everything and the enemy will have just one and you will win.


No, I'm not but that's about the fourth time you've fabricated an argument for me.

To state my position again (and it's incredible this is required yet another time) = I don't believe it's possible for a dirty jammer to make battlespace a WVR fight. I never said one side had everything, I never said F-35s are invincible, I never said whatever other exaggeration of my opinion you're planning on making up next.



Daryl Hunt said:


> A Dirty Jammer will NEVER be used by itself.


If your dirty jammer is putting out enough noise to render RF signals useless for a given battlespace, you cannot use deception jamming in that same area because it relies on sending out deceptive RF signals. You said dirty jamming made the battlespace WVR, but when it was pointed out the jamming source would be a BVR target for HOJ missiles you're suddenly talking about deception jamming. Deceptive jamming will not protect the source of barrage jamming, since it wouldn't work in that environment.



Daryl Hunt said:


> And one of the easiest to block is the X band that the Amraam uses to home in with when it finally gets close enough to take command


The AMRAAM is flying HOJ it is already in command and it's passive so it's radar cannot be jammed. Eventually it's getting close enough to reach RF burn through, via passive guidance. This is a recording.



Daryl Hunt said:


> I don't need a cite on this.  I have experience, you don't.


Does that usually work for you? Where you can just say whatever you want then lean on claims of experience instead of actually backing it up? Sorry you have to provide a source when you state something like you did about F-18s forcing F-22s to operate WVR exercises in exercises. Do you have it?





Daryl Hunt said:


> You want cites?  Then I suggest you give them.  You haven't given any yourself and yet you demand that I give them.  Nope, I give you over 20 years experience being around a lot of different missioned Aircraft including the F, C, B, AC, RC and EC types.  I know some of what they can do.  But I don't know all of what they can do and even if I did, I wouldn't  broadcast it and expect to not be doing a lengthy stay in Military Club Fed.  You want proof whether it can be done or not?  Start a war, enlist, put your own ass or your own Sons ass on the line instead of sending someone elses.


What exactly would you like a cite of? Proof that modern AMRAAMs have HOJ mode? Proof that HOJ mode is passive so cannot be jammed with barrage jamming? Proof that F-35s and F-22s can use the antennas spread out across exterior of aircraft to triangulate the source of an electronic emission like a barrage jamming source from BVR? Proof that an F-22 or F-35 can cue an AMRAAM using said passive data without using it's radar?

Those are the basis of my argument, and I'd  be happy to dig up a source proving any of them.




Daryl Hunt said:


> You keep screaming over and over that the US has Aesa Radar.


Irrelevant whether Russia has it or not, we're talking about whether barrage jamming makes a battlespace WVR only. The Russian plane using barrage jamming is a target whether it has AESA or not.




Daryl Hunt said:


> I can always tell when someone is in serious trouble.  They either fall back on the insults or the "Cite" routine.  And that is where you are right now.  Move on.


That's how it works, back up what you're shoveling or save it. Your use of appeal to authority fallacy hasn't helped you explain how barrage jamming makes a battlespace WVR in modern era. If anything the person in serious trouble is the one resorting to claiming everything they say should just be believed because they say so.


----------



## DrainBamage

So let's get away from the various fallacies (strawman, appeal to authority) and instead of getting angry that someone dare question you how about you try to walk me through how this works. Prove to me that a plane can render an entire battlespace WVR.

1. You've got a barrage jamming source flying at the center of this denied airspace, pumping out RF noise across all frequencies (thus weakening the power at any given frequency) so that radars are not useful at detecting/tracking objects within it's area of effect.

2. I submit this aircraft is vulnerable to passive detection and targeting by F-22s and F-35s. They were built with antennas embedded around the aircraft and the computing power to triangulate RF signals.

3. Current generation of AMRAAM can be launched at this jamming source by said F-22s and F-35s in HOJ mode where the AMRAAM is homing passive thus will not be affected by barrage jamming since it's homing on RF source and doesn't require course updates from launching aircraft. Furthermore an aircraft engaging in barrage jamming would see neither the F-22/F-35 at BVR launching the missiles nor the AMRAAMs themselves since it's at the center of airspace where RF noise has rendered radars ineffective.

4. You're talking about DRFM defeating the AMRAAMs, which it could do (so could spot jamming on x-band) but again DRFM relies on sending a radar signal to spoof and you're barrage jamming so radars don't work. Furthermore, how do you know to start jamming an AMRAAM that you don't see coming since radars are ineffective around your aircraft? Without detecting it you'd have no reason to switch to spot or DRFM jamming. Furthermore, DRFM is mainly used at longer ranges to deceive locations or number, once something is inside the distance of the range you're trying to spoof to it's far less effective.

So exactly how does this aircraft that is barrage jamming intend to stay alive? It would be a victim of it's only electronic airspace denial, and the very fact that a barrage jamming source can be detected and targeted from BVR means the claim it's a WVR environment false.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using the old adage, You have everything and the enemy will have just one and you will win.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not but that's about the fourth time you've fabricated an argument for me.
> 
> To state my position again (and it's incredible this is required yet another time) = I don't believe it's possible for a dirty jammer to make battlespace a WVR fight. I never said one side had everything, I never said F-35s are invincible, I never said whatever other exaggeration of my opinion you're planning on making up next.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Dirty Jammer will NEVER be used by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your dirty jammer is putting out enough noise to render RF signals useless for a given battlespace, you cannot use deception jamming in that same area because it relies on sending out deceptive RF signals. You said dirty jamming made the battlespace WVR, but when it was pointed out the jamming source would be a BVR target for HOJ missiles you're suddenly talking about deception jamming. Deceptive jamming will not protect the source of barrage jamming, since it wouldn't work in that environment.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And one of the easiest to block is the X band that the Amraam uses to home in with when it finally gets close enough to take command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The AMRAAM is flying HOJ it is already in command and it's passive so it's radar cannot be jammed. Eventually it's getting close enough to reach RF burn through, via passive guidance. This is a recording.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a cite on this.  I have experience, you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that usually work for you? Where you can just say whatever you want then lean on claims of experience instead of actually backing it up? Sorry you have to provide a source when you state something like you did about F-18s forcing F-22s to operate WVR exercises in exercises. Do you have it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want cites?  Then I suggest you give them.  You haven't given any yourself and yet you demand that I give them.  Nope, I give you over 20 years experience being around a lot of different missioned Aircraft including the F, C, B, AC, RC and EC types.  I know some of what they can do.  But I don't know all of what they can do and even if I did, I wouldn't  broadcast it and expect to not be doing a lengthy stay in Military Club Fed.  You want proof whether it can be done or not?  Start a war, enlist, put your own ass or your own Sons ass on the line instead of sending someone elses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly would you like a cite of? Proof that modern AMRAAMs have HOJ mode? Proof that HOJ mode is passive so cannot be jammed with barrage jamming? Proof that F-35s and F-22s can use the antennas spread out across exterior of aircraft to triangulate the source of an electronic emission like a barrage jamming source from BVR? Proof that an F-22 or F-35 can cue an AMRAAM using said passive data without using it's radar?
> 
> Those are the basis of my argument, and I'd  be happy to dig up a source proving any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep screaming over and over that the US has Aesa Radar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant whether Russia has it or not, we're talking about whether barrage jamming makes a battlespace WVR only. The Russian plane using barrage jamming is a target whether it has AESA or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can always tell when someone is in serious trouble.  They either fall back on the insults or the "Cite" routine.  And that is where you are right now.  Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's how it works, back up what you're shoveling or save it. Your use of appeal to authority fallacy hasn't helped you explain how barrage jamming makes a battlespace WVR in modern era. If anything the person in serious trouble is the one resorting to claiming everything they say should just be believed because they say so.
Click to expand...


There is only one way to know for sure and that is a war between the Russians and the US.  Are you willing to find out?  War is prevented by preventable pauses.  And since my Family has been in many wars in the past, I pray to God that the preventable pauses continue to work.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> So let's get away from the various fallacies (strawman, appeal to authority) and instead of getting angry that someone dare question you how about you try to walk me through how this works. Prove to me that a plane can render an entire battlespace WVR.
> 
> 1. You've got a barrage jamming source flying at the center of this denied airspace, pumping out RF noise across all frequencies (thus weakening the power at any given frequency) so that radars are not useful at detecting/tracking objects within it's area of effect.
> 
> 2. I submit this aircraft is vulnerable to passive detection and targeting by F-22s and F-35s. They were built with antennas embedded around the aircraft and the computing power to triangulate RF signals.
> 
> 3. Current generation of AMRAAM can be launched at this jamming source by said F-22s and F-35s in HOJ mode where the AMRAAM is homing passive thus will not be affected by barrage jamming since it's homing on RF source and doesn't require course updates from launching aircraft. Furthermore an aircraft engaging in barrage jamming would see neither the F-22/F-35 at BVR launching the missiles nor the AMRAAMs themselves since it's at the center of airspace where RF noise has rendered radars ineffective.
> 
> 4. You're talking about DRFM defeating the AMRAAMs, which it could do (so could spot jamming on x-band) but again DRFM relies on sending a radar signal to spoof and you're barrage jamming so radars don't work. Furthermore, how do you know to start jamming an AMRAAM that you don't see coming since radars are ineffective around your aircraft? Without detecting it you'd have no reason to switch to spot or DRFM jamming. Furthermore, DRFM is mainly used at longer ranges to deceive locations or number, once something is inside the distance of the range you're trying to spoof to it's far less effective.
> 
> So exactly how does this aircraft that is barrage jamming intend to stay alive? It would be a victim of it's only electronic airspace denial, and the very fact that a barrage jamming source can be detected and targeted from BVR means the claim it's a WVR environment false.



There you go again.  You want to have the dirty jammer out there all by itself.  You forget that it's going to have support from others that are flying just behind or beside or outside the cone of jamming influence.  The Jammers job is to allow the supporting cast to close and engage at IR range where your wonderful new toys are pretty well worthless unless you count on the F-15E and F-22 Aim-9X.  The F-35 will probably hang back as it's going to be who has the most Missiles and who can close fastest and a bunch of other attributes that the F-35 is not designed to have.  Yah, Yah, I know the F-35A can carry two Aim-9Xs but it defeats his forward stealth capability.  Once the dirty jammer has allowed his supporting staff to get within IR range (and the Russians currently have a slight advantage in that in the merge), the job and life of the dirty jammer is done.  He can be destroyed or disengage and go home at that point.  The job of the jammer (and maybe the life) will be measured in minutes.  He will make the distance go from about 80 miles, which is the real kill range of the Amraam and the Russian equiv of it, down to about 35 miles which is the kill rate of the IR AA missiles of both sides.  

You keep presenting the Detectors on the F-35 as unlimited in range.  They are not.  They have a short range unless the other side wants to fly with his radar constantly on which just ain't going to happen.  Once you remove the long range radar from the fight, both sides will be using IR detectors and Mark 7 Eyeballs to see the enemy.  And for IR Detector equipped Fighters, the Russians have a definite advantage since all SU-35s, Mig-35s and most SU-27s have them installed already.  And we are just now starting to install them on the F-15C/D/E and F-22.  The only fighter on the US side that has it already is the F-35.  And the F-35 won't be in this knock down, drag out fight.  

The fact remains that there is going to be a huge amount of Missiles expended by both sides just to get a handful of kills or damages.  Most Amraams will be defeated as well as most Russian Equiv missiles.  It's going to be a supersonic close to see who can get in IR range first, get the lockon and launch.  And there is going to be a huge expenditure of IR missiles to get only a handful of kills as well.  What very well come out of this is only a few will be killed and all will go home with empty racks.  The last thing either side really wants to do is get into a gun fight but if Pilots are equal, the Russians will have the advantage if they can generate enough SU-35s.  

In the end, it's not going to be the F-22 that ends the day in the Air for the US.  It's going to be all the other fighters since the F-22 is a one sortie bird.  In this type of fight, each AC is going to have to be resortied at least 2 or 3 to maintain an hope of winning.  Once the F-22 expends it's 8 missiles, it's done.  Even the measily 6 missiles that the F-35 has a huge advantage since it can be resortied up to 3 times in a given day.  Just remember, less than half of the F-22 force will be combat ready.  And that is what, half of less than 190 Aircraft and that is if you had them all in one spot.  The F-22 will be only good for the opening shots when all those missiles are going to be flung by both sides at each other.  Once that's done, he's done.  When he lands, he's probably down for the next 3 days.  It won't take but a couple of days to deplete the F-22 down to being ineffective due to high lengthy and costly maintenance.  Meanwhile, the F-15 will be doing what it's always done and be the front line Interdiction Fighter.  Not to worry, the Russians will be having their own problems with the SU-35 only being able to make a few sorties before it gets in the same boat.  For the long run, it's going to be for long range fighters, the F-15 against the SU-27 since they both have the numbers to continue.  

And you leave out the rest of the supporting cast as well including the ECs, RCs, Ground Installations and more.  There might even be a ship or two that get's a few licks in as well.  The Dirty Jammer is just part of that cast for the production.  And both sides will be using it.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> There is only one way to know for sure and that is a war between the Russians and the US.


False. Weapons, radars, ECM, ECCM, etc. can be developed and tested without a war.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> There you go again.  You want to have the dirty jammer out there all by itself.  You forget that it's going to have support from others that are flying just behind or beside or outside the cone of jamming influence.  The Jammers job is to allow the supporting cast to close and engage at IR range where your wonderful new toys are pretty well worthless unless you count on the F-15E and F-22 Aim-9X.  The F-35 will probably hang back as it's going to be who has the most Missiles and who can close fastest and a bunch of other attributes that the F-35 is not designed to have.  Yah, Yah, I know the F-35A can carry two Aim-9Xs but it defeats his forward stealth capability.  Once the dirty jammer has allowed his supporting staff to get within IR range (and the Russians currently have a slight advantage in that in the merge), the job and life of the dirty jammer is done.  He can be destroyed or disengage and go home at that point.  The job of the jammer (and maybe the life) will be measured in minutes.  He will make the distance go from about 80 miles, which is the real kill range of the Amraam and the Russian equiv of it, down to about 35 miles which is the kill rate of the IR AA missiles of both sides.


I don't have the jammer out there by itself, you just haven't been able to articulate how it matters. 

1. The plane that is jamming will be detected at BVR, because all that RF noise is a big "here I am" sign. It will be the target of AMRAAMs launched HOJ from BVR. Therefore your claim that jamming will make it a WVR fight are false. 

2. Now you're talking about a cone of influence, how does this jamming aircraft know where the F-22 even is? Maybe it (or it's wingman) are approaching from an angle outside the cone of influence.



Daryl Hunt said:


> You keep presenting the Detectors on the F-35 as unlimited in range.  They are not.  They have a short range unless the other side wants to fly with his radar constantly on which just ain't going to happen.  Once you remove the long range radar from the fight, both sides will be using IR detectors and Mark 7 Eyeballs to see the enemy.  And for IR Detector equipped Fighters, the Russians have a definite advantage since all SU-35s, Mig-35s and most SU-27s have them installed already.  And we are just now starting to install them on the F-15C/D/E and F-22.  The only fighter on the US side that has it already is the F-35.  And the F-35 won't be in this knock down, drag out fight.


Absolutely false, you're again attributing arguments to me I never made. I said the passive RF sensors on the F-22 and F-35 would detect your jamming source at BVR, which is a fact. Here is some info about ALR-94:

The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."  The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector. *A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more*. 

F-35 has AN/ASQ-239, which is a more advanced version of F-22s that uses 10 antennas embedded into the plane. I cannot imagine how someone can convince themself that these passive sensors would not pick up an aircraft purposely emitting RF noise at high power. It doesn't matter if the other planes are using their radars or not, that aircraft doing the jamming is easily tracked from BVR and attacked from BVR.



Daryl Hunt said:


> The fact remains that there is going to be a huge amount of Missiles expended by both sides just to get a handful of kills or damages.  Most Amraams will be defeated as well as most Russian Equiv missiles.  It's going to be a supersonic close to see who can get in IR range first, get the lockon and launch.  And there is going to be a huge expenditure of IR missiles to get only a handful of kills as well.  What very well come out of this is only a few will be killed and all will go home with empty racks.  The last thing either side really wants to do is get into a gun fight but if Pilots are equal, the Russians will have the advantage if they can generate enough SU-35s.


What are the Russians aiming their missiles at? From what you said they are flying blind hoping that F-22s decide to approach this jamming source instead of shoot it out of the sky from BVR. If the F-22s see your jamming source's heading they don't have to just approach from headon.




Daryl Hunt said:


> cone of influence


What happens when an F-22 attacks from outside this cone of influence? I don't believe the pilots received any memo that if there is an obvious radiation source from an enemy aircraft barrage jamming they are required to head full speed to engage head on and hope for the best, which seems to be what you're counting on. Remember, your formation is flying blind and has no idea if/where the F-22s are, but they knew exactly where you were from a great distance.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one way to know for sure and that is a war between the Russians and the US.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Weapons, radars, ECM, ECCM, etc. can be developed and tested without a war.
Click to expand...


We already know that they don't allow either the US Planes to exibit their capabilities out in the open.  You can develop things but if the public isn't in the loop, you can't know what is really the truth.  Sort of like the Chinese DR21 or the Russian Armata or SU-57.  Then there is the Propoganda that both sides put out to appear larger than they really are.  It's reminiscent of the late 1950s through the early 70s with the American engine producers.  AHRA used a Horsepower per pound.  While your Chevy 454 was rated at 425 hp, the claim of the 426 Hemi of 425 got you a rating of 550 hp in stock trim.  In 1958 Chrysler put out a 392 Hemi.  Decades later, an engine builder built up a 392 Imperial Hemi to stock condition and dynoed it out.  That 392 by 392 was dynoed out at 505 hp.  Only a Motor Head will understand this one, This is why today, a 1958 Christine should not be sold off short in a drag race with anything short of a rocket car.  The Demon V the Hellcat has almost the same engine yet one is rated at 707 and the other at 850 hp.  But on the Dyno, they are almost identical.  What is the difference?  Not the engines so much but the Demon is lightened up considerably with a stump pulling gear ration while the Hellcat is designed for the street as well as cornering and is considerable heavier and geared for over 200 mph.But the Demon is advertised as the superior car.  Not in my book.

What's real and what isn't.  The US and Russia only leak out most of what is real.  Behind the scenes, there might be more capabilities or some hoaxes.  It's way above my pay grade to know for sure what is real and what isn't.  This is why we haven't started taking out North Koreas Ballistic Missiles in flight.  You can do all the hits but do one miss and that's the one that gets reported.  Better to not show the capability and allow the paltry number of launches since they aren't loaded with a yield anyway.  Even Kim should know that not one single warhead will reach apogee should he fire an armed version.  But that is not what he tells his Subjects.  In War Games, the F-22 doesn't use all it's capabilities and can be contested at times.  The same goes for the F-35A when it's finally used in the World War Games.  The F-15 already flies like that as well and always had.  What is real and what is hype?  The Russians are no different with the systems.  They hype one area and don't let you see another area.  

Again, (hear the echo) the only sure way to know the truth is to have a war between Russia and the US.  Then the truth comes out fast.  And neither side is willing to find out that way.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.  You want to have the dirty jammer out there all by itself.  You forget that it's going to have support from others that are flying just behind or beside or outside the cone of jamming influence.  The Jammers job is to allow the supporting cast to close and engage at IR range where your wonderful new toys are pretty well worthless unless you count on the F-15E and F-22 Aim-9X.  The F-35 will probably hang back as it's going to be who has the most Missiles and who can close fastest and a bunch of other attributes that the F-35 is not designed to have.  Yah, Yah, I know the F-35A can carry two Aim-9Xs but it defeats his forward stealth capability.  Once the dirty jammer has allowed his supporting staff to get within IR range (and the Russians currently have a slight advantage in that in the merge), the job and life of the dirty jammer is done.  He can be destroyed or disengage and go home at that point.  The job of the jammer (and maybe the life) will be measured in minutes.  He will make the distance go from about 80 miles, which is the real kill range of the Amraam and the Russian equiv of it, down to about 35 miles which is the kill rate of the IR AA missiles of both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the jammer out there by itself, you just haven't been able to articulate how it matters.
> 
> 1. The plane that is jamming will be detected at BVR, because all that RF noise is a big "here I am" sign. It will be the target of AMRAAMs launched HOJ from BVR. Therefore your claim that jamming will make it a WVR fight are false.
> 
> 2. Now you're talking about a cone of influence, how does this jamming aircraft know where the F-22 even is? Maybe it (or it's wingman) are approaching from an angle outside the cone of influence.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting the Detectors on the F-35 as unlimited in range.  They are not.  They have a short range unless the other side wants to fly with his radar constantly on which just ain't going to happen.  Once you remove the long range radar from the fight, both sides will be using IR detectors and Mark 7 Eyeballs to see the enemy.  And for IR Detector equipped Fighters, the Russians have a definite advantage since all SU-35s, Mig-35s and most SU-27s have them installed already.  And we are just now starting to install them on the F-15C/D/E and F-22.  The only fighter on the US side that has it already is the F-35.  And the F-35 won't be in this knock down, drag out fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely false, you're again attributing arguments to me I never made. I said the passive RF sensors on the F-22 and F-35 would detect your jamming source at BVR, which is a fact. Here is some info about ALR-94:
> 
> The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."  The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector. *A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more*.
> 
> F-35 has AN/ASQ-239, which is a more advanced version of F-22s that uses 10 antennas embedded into the plane. I cannot imagine how someone can convince themself that these passive sensors would not pick up an aircraft purposely emitting RF noise at high power. It doesn't matter if the other planes are using their radars or not, that aircraft doing the jamming is easily tracked from BVR and attacked from BVR.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there is going to be a huge amount of Missiles expended by both sides just to get a handful of kills or damages.  Most Amraams will be defeated as well as most Russian Equiv missiles.  It's going to be a supersonic close to see who can get in IR range first, get the lockon and launch.  And there is going to be a huge expenditure of IR missiles to get only a handful of kills as well.  What very well come out of this is only a few will be killed and all will go home with empty racks.  The last thing either side really wants to do is get into a gun fight but if Pilots are equal, the Russians will have the advantage if they can generate enough SU-35s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the Russians aiming their missiles at? From what you said they are flying blind hoping that F-22s decide to approach this jamming source instead of shoot it out of the sky from BVR. If the F-22s see your jamming source's heading they don't have to just approach from headon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> cone of influence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens when an F-22 attacks from outside this cone of influence? I don't believe the pilots received any memo that if there is an obvious radiation source from an enemy aircraft barrage jamming they are required to head full speed to engage head on and hope for the best, which seems to be what you're counting on. Remember, your formation is flying blind and has no idea if/where the F-22s are, but they knew exactly where you were from a great distance.
Click to expand...


Your HOJ works only when the Jammer is active.  If he is pulsing the jam your HOJ will lose signal and go ballistic.  It's not like a Harm that can go into loiter mode and wait for the signal to come back on.  So they pulse the signal in a way to prevent the HOJ.  

Meanwhile, the F-22 is going to be in front of the jammer.  He isn't going to mysteriously beam me up scotty behind the Russian Force.  It doesn't work that way.  Plus, both sides are going to begin the battle with Radar ON but quickly go to passive modes that reduces their sensors to about 35 miles.  But you want the Russians to keep their Radar on at all times.  Not going to happen considering, outside of the F-35, the SU-35 has the best forward sensors for IR out to about 35 miles. Ones again, you are pulling a Monopad routine where you give all the good stuff (both real and imagined) to your side while you cripple the other side.  If the F-22 leaves his Radar on, chances are, he will be testing out if the new Russian AA Missiles do have the range they claim they do have.  I doubt if the Pilot will want to take that chance.  If he leaves his radar on  HE stands out like a beacon in the night.

Your conditions are, ALL Russian Fighters MUST fly with active radar.  The Jammers must not pulse their jams.  The F-22s can start the fight anywhere they wish by beaming to the appropriate location best suited to them.  All Russian Defensive weapons and counters will not work very well.  Get a grip.  It's like requiring the F-35 to fly with his IFF turned on so the other side can see him.  Not going to happen.  Placing artificial conditions are fine in war games but in actual war, there are NO pre conditions.  That's a sure fired way to lose a war fast.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> We already know that they don't allow either the US Planes to exibit their capabilities out in the open.


Yet here you were earlier in this thread talking about the Russian plane jamming everything.



Daryl Hunt said:


> Again, (hear the echo) the only sure way to know the truth is to have a war between Russia and the US.  Then the truth comes out fast.  And neither side is willing to find out that way.


You don't need a war to validate basic principles of electronic warfare.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Your HOJ works only when the Jammer is active.  If he is pulsing the jam your HOJ will lose signal and go ballistic.  It's not like a Harm that can go into loiter mode and wait for the signal to come back on.  So they pulse the signal in a way to prevent the HOJ.


You don't understand how an AMRAAM in HOJ works. It interlaces passive and active pulses to be able to switch back to active radar if the ECM source goes silent, it does not just go ballistic. You've also (again) argued against your premise that barrage jamming makes the entire airspace a WVR fight, if you're pulsing your barrage jamming opposing radars can get a good BVR view of where your assets are, in addition to the passive view they've got from the jamming. Meanwhile you're still blind.



Daryl Hunt said:


> Meanwhile, the F-22 is going to be in front of the jammer.  He isn't going to mysteriously beam me up scotty behind the Russian Force.  It doesn't work that way.  Plus, both sides are going to begin the battle with Radar ON but quickly go to passive modes that reduces their sensors to about 35 miles.  But you want the Russians to keep their Radar on at all times.  Not going to happen considering, outside of the F-35, the SU-35 has the best forward sensors for IR out to about 35 miles. Ones again, you are pulling a Monopad routine where you give all the good stuff (both real and imagined) to your side while you cripple the other side.  If the F-22 leaves his Radar on, chances are, he will be testing out if the new Russian AA Missiles do have the range they claim they do have.  I doubt if the Pilot will want to take that chance.  If he leaves his radar on  HE stands out like a beacon in the night.


Why does the F-22 need to be in front of the jammer? I didn't know we were talking about some bizarre corner-case scenario where the F-22s who see the opposing force from over two hundred miles away are not allowed to change course to approach from an angle outside the frontal cones where their sensors are strongest.

You're also wrong about both sides going into the battle with active radars on, the F-22s will detect your RF (from either radar or jamming) from outside the range of either radar and won't be emitting anything.

You're also wrong about sensor range, F-22 can passively detect RF signals (like a jammer) at much greater range than a radar can detect anything, I already provided a source backing this up so when you say it's 35 miles you're just ignoring inconvenient facts. Again:

*A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more*

That jamming you keep talking about as some panacea of invulnerability? That's the RF source that you're pumping as much power as possible into, and that's what gets you tracked passively from far away. YOu don't need an active radar broadcasting RF to be picked up when your jamming to broadcast RF.


You're also wrong about me wanting to keep their radars on all the time, you're attributing something to me I didn't say, for probably the 5th time in this discussion. All those F-22s need to know where your planes are is for that jammer to be emitting. They'll pick it up from hundreds of miles away.

You're also wrong about me crippling either side, I'm responding to exactly how you say they'll operate.




Daryl Hunt said:


> Your conditions are, ALL Russian Fighters MUST fly with active radar.  The Jammers must not pulse their jams.  The F-22s can start the fight anywhere they wish by beaming to the appropriate location best suited to them.


False, false, false. I never said Russians must fly with active radar. I never said jammer cannot pulse their jams. I never said F-22s can start the fight anywhere they want. I'll try to describe my argument again since you misstate it pretty much every time.

1. F-22s passively detect the jammer. They don't need any active radars to be detected, the jamming source is all they need to know where the Russians are. They will detect this jammer from much greater range than their radars could pick them up, it's a fundamental aspect of RF that simply receiving a signal can be done at much greater distance than receiving the bounce return of one you sent. I'm not sure how I can make this any more clear, you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the jammer is what gives their position away. So F-22s know position of plane doing the jamming, but the jamming source is flying blind.

2. It doesn't matter if they pulse their jams, you have fundamental misunderstanding of how a HOJ AMRAAM works since you keep saying it just goes ballistic if loses jam. If they pulse their jams they just make it so AMRAAM switches back and forth to active mode, and anyone with a radar on gets to intermittently see your assets.

3. F-22s start on an intercept course, but since they see your first from over 200 miles away they can vector in from any angle they need to. It's funny you think planes do not take advantage of superior situational awareness to get a better shot, they've been doing it for almost a hundred years. Some planes with a massive RF beacon flying blind while broadcasting their position are just asking for F-22s to approach from outside their forward sensors and shoot them down before they even know F-22s are in the sky.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

there4eyeM said:


> Masses of little drones can hover or circle and await their chance. They can overcome by shear, cheap numbers. They don't have to eat, sleep, urinate. They can't be poisoned, blinded by lasers, or get distracted thinking about sex.
> Remember WWII. The Sherman was no match for a Tiger, but four or five were and the U.S. produced enormous quantities the Germans couldn't come close to equaling. Unfortunately, the crews suffered horribly. Drones avoid that. There is nothing being sacrificed but some metal and circuitry.



Let me know when you build those and prove they actually work.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already know that they don't allow either the US Planes to exibit their capabilities out in the open.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you were earlier in this thread talking about the Russian plane jamming everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, (hear the echo) the only sure way to know the truth is to have a war between Russia and the US.  Then the truth comes out fast.  And neither side is willing to find out that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't need a war to validate basic principles of electronic warfare.
Click to expand...


You must have a sooperdooper security clearance that you haven't told us about.  Much higher than I ever held and I worked with Nukes and the F-15 Avionics.  A couple of boxes still go into a safe room where they are serviced by Civilians with outlandish security clearances.  If I knew what you think you know and I told you, I would have to kill you right before they killed me.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your HOJ works only when the Jammer is active.  If he is pulsing the jam your HOJ will lose signal and go ballistic.  It's not like a Harm that can go into loiter mode and wait for the signal to come back on.  So they pulse the signal in a way to prevent the HOJ.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how an AMRAAM in HOJ works. It interlaces passive and active pulses to be able to switch back to active radar if the ECM source goes silent, it does not just go ballistic. You've also (again) argued against your premise that barrage jamming makes the entire airspace a WVR fight, if you're pulsing your barrage jamming opposing radars can get a good BVR view of where your assets are, in addition to the passive view they've got from the jamming. Meanwhile you're still blind.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the F-22 is going to be in front of the jammer.  He isn't going to mysteriously beam me up scotty behind the Russian Force.  It doesn't work that way.  Plus, both sides are going to begin the battle with Radar ON but quickly go to passive modes that reduces their sensors to about 35 miles.  But you want the Russians to keep their Radar on at all times.  Not going to happen considering, outside of the F-35, the SU-35 has the best forward sensors for IR out to about 35 miles. Ones again, you are pulling a Monopad routine where you give all the good stuff (both real and imagined) to your side while you cripple the other side.  If the F-22 leaves his Radar on, chances are, he will be testing out if the new Russian AA Missiles do have the range they claim they do have.  I doubt if the Pilot will want to take that chance.  If he leaves his radar on  HE stands out like a beacon in the night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the F-22 need to be in front of the jammer? I didn't know we were talking about some bizarre corner-case scenario where the F-22s who see the opposing force from over two hundred miles away are not allowed to change course to approach from an angle outside the frontal cones where their sensors are strongest.
> 
> You're also wrong about both sides going into the battle with active radars on, the F-22s will detect your RF (from either radar or jamming) from outside the range of either radar and won't be emitting anything.
> 
> You're also wrong about sensor range, F-22 can passively detect RF signals (like a jammer) at much greater range than a radar can detect anything, I already provided a source backing this up so when you say it's 35 miles you're just ignoring inconvenient facts. Again:
> 
> *A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more*
> 
> That jamming you keep talking about as some panacea of invulnerability? That's the RF source that you're pumping as much power as possible into, and that's what gets you tracked passively from far away. YOu don't need an active radar broadcasting RF to be picked up when your jamming to broadcast RF.
> 
> 
> You're also wrong about me wanting to keep their radars on all the time, you're attributing something to me I didn't say, for probably the 5th time in this discussion. All those F-22s need to know where your planes are is for that jammer to be emitting. They'll pick it up from hundreds of miles away.
> 
> You're also wrong about me crippling either side, I'm responding to exactly how you say they'll operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conditions are, ALL Russian Fighters MUST fly with active radar.  The Jammers must not pulse their jams.  The F-22s can start the fight anywhere they wish by beaming to the appropriate location best suited to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False, false, false. I never said Russians must fly with active radar. I never said jammer cannot pulse their jams. I never said F-22s can start the fight anywhere they want. I'll try to describe my argument again since you misstate it pretty much every time.
> 
> 1. F-22s passively detect the jammer. They don't need any active radars to be detected, the jamming source is all they need to know where the Russians are. They will detect this jammer from much greater range than their radars could pick them up, it's a fundamental aspect of RF that simply receiving a signal can be done at much greater distance than receiving the bounce return of one you sent. I'm not sure how I can make this any more clear, you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the jammer is what gives their position away. So F-22s know position of plane doing the jamming, but the jamming source is flying blind.
> 
> 2. It doesn't matter if they pulse their jams, you have fundamental misunderstanding of how a HOJ AMRAAM works since you keep saying it just goes ballistic if loses jam. If they pulse their jams they just make it so AMRAAM switches back and forth to active mode, and anyone with a radar on gets to intermittently see your assets.
> 
> 3. F-22s start on an intercept course, but since they see your first from over 200 miles away they can vector in from any angle they need to. It's funny you think planes do not take advantage of superior situational awareness to get a better shot, they've been doing it for almost a hundred years. Some planes with a massive RF beacon flying blind while broadcasting their position are just asking for F-22s to approach from outside their forward sensors and shoot them down before they even know F-22s are in the sky.
Click to expand...


The only Fighter with ANY advantage in the opening salvo will be the F-22 and that will be very short lived.  He only has so many missiles.  When those are expended, he will have to withdraw.  Otherwise, if something gets through, he won't be able to defend himself.  The last thing a F-22 wants to get into is either an IR missile fight or a Gun to Gun fight.  His contribution is much higher if he expends his stores and disengages to rearm.  Same goes for the F-35 who has even fewer missiles.  The bulk of the fighting will end up with a slugfest between the F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, Su-27s, and Mig-29s.  With a few SU-30s thrown in.  Unlike the F-22, these can expend their stores, disengage, rearm and return to battle 2 to 4 times on any given day.  The F-22 will be lucky to be able to make one sortie per 3 days.  After the opening salvo, the F-22 is no longer a factor since there just isn't very many of them and they can't all be everywhere at once.  Meanwhile, the F-35 is going to be busy doing other chores that it's better suited for.  So it boils down to the Gen 4 US Fighters slugging it out for air superiority after the first day.  All your bells and whistles are done in a matter of minutes.  This is a war that neither side yearns to fight as there will be NO winning side.  And remember, both sides pretty much have equal toys with the exception of the F-22 and he won't be in the battle but for only a few minutes.  

And both sides will use dirty jamming when they can get away with it or they think they can get away with it.  The F-35 is very capable of doing that job and I imagine that at least one version of Russian Fighter can probably do that same job as well.  

You keep forgetting that just because you are aware they are there doesn't mean you can effectively fire on them with any chance of success.  In fact, if they are running without radar like they probably will be, you are going to have to fire yours up to do those long shots.  It probably won't be the bird doing the lock that actually fires the missile but the missile and the lock can be defeated and you will have given away your own position on whatever bird did the scan and lock who has become a target themselves and will be fired on.  The US doesn't have the range of the missiles cornered.  Things are pretty well even in that respect.  There are just too many things that can go wrong on both sides that will affect incoming missiles.  

The pilots I have conversed with have all said that most fighters will go bingo before they can get an actual kill in this type of scenario after expending their payloads.  A handful of Fighters on both sides may be damaged or shot down but everyone else will go home.  The real winner will be the one that still has fighters with fuel and stores in the area after everyone else goes home.  

If the US wins that day, it won't be any of the short range fighters or limited number fighters that will be still in the air.  It's going to be the F-15C.  If the Russians win the day, it's going to be the SU-27.  And it might be sortie number 2 or 3 for any of the existing fighters left over.  

You keep; simplifying the battle.  It's just not the fighters what will be involved.  There will be a host of other birds, ground installations and Satellites involved as well.  The Russians are now starting to put their new S-500 into the field and we know NOTHING about it.  We know we can defeat their S-300 but haven't seen the S-400 in operation as of yet.  

You keep only allowing one type of Jammer.  There are many different jammers including Stand Off Jammers that are completely out of the HOJ range.  They stay just outside of the HOJ range and operate without fear of HOJ attack.  Yes, it takes a lot of power.  And right now, the only fighter with that kind of power that I know of is the F-35A.  But if we have it, chances are, the Russians have an equivalent as well.  To think otherwise is just plain foolish and suicidal.  If the dirty jammer has enough power (enough electric power) then he can burn through your radar and you will have to get closer to burn through his jamming on the targets he is protecting.    I suggest you read Chapter 11 COUNTERMEASURES  It's interesting reading.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You must have a sooperdooper security clearance that you haven't told us about.


If I had a security clearance, why would I tell you? I can argue a point without trying to use an appeal to authority fallacy.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The only Fighter with ANY advantage in the opening salvo will be the F-22 and that will be very short lived.  He only has so many missiles.  When those are expended, he will have to withdraw.  Otherwise, if something gets through, he won't be able to defend himself.  The last thing a F-22 wants to get into is either an IR missile fight or a Gun to Gun fight.  His contribution is much higher if he expends his stores and disengages to rearm.


Wrong, again. F-35 would have same advantage in detecting the jamming aircraft passively, thus having the massive advantage of knowing where it is while it doesn't even know F-35 is in the sky.



Daryl Hunt said:


> And both sides will use dirty jamming when they can get away with it or they think they can get away with it.  The F-35 is very capable of doing that job and I imagine that at least one version of Russian Fighter can probably do that same job as well.


Wrong, again. It depends on what's in the fight, LO aircraft will avoid giving away their position by broadcasting RF. They know where this jamming aircraft is, but it doesn't even know they are in the sky, so they aren't going to start broadcasting.



Daryl Hunt said:


> You keep forgetting that just because you are aware they are there doesn't mean you can effectively fire on them with any chance of success.  In fact, if they are running without radar like they probably will be, you are going to have to fire yours up to do those long shots.  It probably won't be the bird doing the lock that actually fires the missile but the missile and the lock can be defeated and you will have given away your own position on whatever bird did the scan and lock who has become a target themselves and will be fired on.  The US doesn't have the range of the missiles cornered.  Things are pretty well even in that respect.  There are just too many things that can go wrong on both sides that will affect incoming missiles


Wrong, again. It's already been explained to you but I'll repeat again... they can fire on that jamming source with HOJ AMRAAM, they don't need to turn on their radar to do it because F-35s and F-22s can passively detect and target opposing aircraft that are giving away their position by broadcasting RF.  They don't have to give away their position.

If they did want to take a look there could be one F-22 using it's radar in LPI at lowest power needed and in a very narrow beam cued to where all this RF noise is coming from, while his wingman comes around to put an AMRAAM up their tailpipe that they never saw coming until it goes bulldog then the only thing they are focused on doing is trying to survive, and ending up in an even worse position if they do survive that first shot.




Daryl Hunt said:


> You keep only allowing one type of Jammer.


Wrong, again. I've taken the time to explain why to you why deception jamming with will with barrage jamming from same source.  It relies on a sending an RF signal that mimics the radar return, but if you're barrage jamming you can't do that.




Daryl Hunt said:


> There are many different jammers including Stand Off Jammers that are completely out of the HOJ range.  They stay just outside of the HOJ range and operate without fear of HOJ attack.


I know how standoff jamming works, but it's used primarily used against fixed targets (like IADS components on the ground) because it requires a directed RF attack meant to disrupt a specific target's radar and the jamming source must be in-line with both the aircraft it's protecting and the enemy radar.  In other words, you have to have a target radar that you're masking something from.







They cannot implement standoff jamming against an F-22 or F-35 because they have no idea if they are present or where they are located. Standoff jammers are also used primarily against IADS components because they have a known location so the standoff jammer can manage their range to stay out of harm's way, that isn't possible against a supersonic stealth fighter that could be coming from any direction.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have a sooperdooper security clearance that you haven't told us about.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a security clearance, why would I tell you? I can argue a point without trying to use an appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...


You seem to be trying to treat me like you would Monobreath.  While I generally agree with much of what you say, not this time.  You are showing two traits that lose wars;  naivity and arrogance.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only Fighter with ANY advantage in the opening salvo will be the F-22 and that will be very short lived.  He only has so many missiles.  When those are expended, he will have to withdraw.  Otherwise, if something gets through, he won't be able to defend himself.  The last thing a F-22 wants to get into is either an IR missile fight or a Gun to Gun fight.  His contribution is much higher if he expends his stores and disengages to rearm.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, again. F-35 would have same advantage in detecting the jamming aircraft passively, thus having the massive advantage of knowing where it is while it doesn't even know F-35 is in the sky.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And both sides will use dirty jamming when they can get away with it or they think they can get away with it.  The F-35 is very capable of doing that job and I imagine that at least one version of Russian Fighter can probably do that same job as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, again. It depends on what's in the fight, LO aircraft will avoid giving away their position by broadcasting RF. They know where this jamming aircraft is, but it doesn't even know they are in the sky, so they aren't going to start broadcasting.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep forgetting that just because you are aware they are there doesn't mean you can effectively fire on them with any chance of success.  In fact, if they are running without radar like they probably will be, you are going to have to fire yours up to do those long shots.  It probably won't be the bird doing the lock that actually fires the missile but the missile and the lock can be defeated and you will have given away your own position on whatever bird did the scan and lock who has become a target themselves and will be fired on.  The US doesn't have the range of the missiles cornered.  Things are pretty well even in that respect.  There are just too many things that can go wrong on both sides that will affect incoming missiles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, again. It's already been explained to you but I'll repeat again... they can fire on that jamming source with HOJ AMRAAM, they don't need to turn on their radar to do it because F-35s and F-22s can passively detect and target opposing aircraft that are giving away their position by broadcasting RF.  They don't have to give away their position.
> 
> If they did want to take a look there could be one F-22 using it's radar in LPI at lowest power needed and in a very narrow beam cued to where all this RF noise is coming from, while his wingman comes around to put an AMRAAM up their tailpipe that they never saw coming until it goes bulldog then the only thing they are focused on doing is trying to survive, and ending up in an even worse position if they do survive that first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep only allowing one type of Jammer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, again. I've taken the time to explain why to you why deception jamming with will with barrage jamming from same source.  It relies on a sending an RF signal that mimics the radar return, but if you're barrage jamming you can't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many different jammers including Stand Off Jammers that are completely out of the HOJ range.  They stay just outside of the HOJ range and operate without fear of HOJ attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how standoff jamming works, but it's used primarily used against fixed targets (like IADS components on the ground) because it requires a directed RF attack meant to disrupt a specific target's radar and the jamming source must be in-line with both the aircraft it's protecting and the enemy radar.  In other words, you have to have a target radar that you're masking something from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot implement standoff jamming against an F-22 or F-35 because they have no idea if they are present or where they are located. Standoff jammers are also used primarily against IADS components because they have a known location so the standoff jammer can manage their range to stay out of harm's way, that isn't possible against a supersonic stealth fighter that could be coming from any direction.
Click to expand...


So the Russians only gets one SOJammer while you get unlimited  F-22s and F-35s.  Thank you for allowing them to have that one.  Chances are, it won't be a fighter doing the SOJ.  It's going to be  a much larger, more powerful signal aircraft.  The US will be doing the same with the ECs.  There is going to be sections in the battlefield that will be completely void of detection on both sides.  You can spew all your BS but in the end, both sides are equipped to fight this type of battle and if any enemy Fighter gets within 35 miles of a F-22 or a F-35, the US Fighters can, and probably will, be fired on.  It takes only a few minutes of closure at Mach 1.6 to close from 80 miles to 35 miles.  The US is going to be doing much the same thing.  Dirty Jammers that are just outside of your launch range coming from different angles leaves voids and in those voids, the 4th gen fighters can operate.  You seem to think that Stealth is the panacea of all things.  Newsflash:  When a fighter with a good IR Detector that can target gets within launch stealth doesn't mean a damned thing.

So keep spewing.  If enough battles are lost by arrogance and selling the enemy as short as you are doing then the war is lost.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You seem to be trying to treat me like you would Monobreath.  While I generally agree with much of what you say, not this time.  You are showing two traits that lose wars;  naivity and arrogance.


Expressing skepticism on your claim that an ECM jammer can turn the battlespace into a WVR fight is hardly arrogance, especially given that you've been completely unable to come close to saying how.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> So the Russians only gets one SOJammer while you get unlimited  F-22s and F-35s.  Thank you for allowing them to have that one.


Nope, you're misstating what I said yet again. Not once did I say there are unlimited F-22s/F-35s, and not once did I say they get on standoff jammer. I really should do a summary of every argument you've attributed to me that I never made, there has been one in almost every post you've made. Terrible habit.



Daryl Hunt said:


> Chances are, it won't be a fighter doing the SOJ.  It's going to be  a much larger, more powerful signal aircraft.  The US will be doing the same with the ECs.  There is going to be sections in the battlefield that will be completely void of detection on both sides.


So you have some large aircraft flying in behind some fighter aircraft that is doing standoff jamming in the direction those planes are flying, and you're just going to hope that any enemy aircraft that you cannot see will happen to be directly ahead of your fighter aircraft so they fall within it's noise cone so that the fighters will be protected. They would have detected you from very far away passively due to your RF noise and know your course, but nah they won't take advantage of this to approach at any advantageous angle they have no choice but to intercept from ahead of you where your sensors would be strongest. You're also going to hope they don't decide to just target this big slow aircraft that is doing the standoff jamming, since unlike with IADS components on the ground the fighters can move at supersonic speeds to close the range to the jamming source.

Sorry dude but you clearly don't understand how standoff jamming works, which is why this fantastic scenario you're constructing is so funny.



Daryl Hunt said:


> You can spew all your BS but in the end, both sides are equipped to fight this type of battle and if any enemy Fighter gets within 35 miles of a F-22 or a F-35, the US Fighters can, and probably will, be fired on.


False, they can be 35 miles from an F-22 and not even know it's there until the AMRAAM coming up their tailpipe goes active.




Daryl Hunt said:


> It takes only a few minutes of closure at Mach 1.6 to close from 80 miles to 35 miles.  The US is going to be doing much the same thing.  Dirty Jammers that are just outside of your launch range coming from different angles leaves voids and in those voids, the 4th gen fighters can operate.


Closing to what? In this bizarre hypothetical you've built the Russian planes are flying blind so don't even know there are F-22s or F-35s in the sky to try to close a distance on. You keep forgetting that you're saying the Russians are broadcasting the position of the jamming aircraft so the F-22s and F-35s can track and target them passively, you have absolutely zero information that anything else is in the sky.

You say the US is going to be doing the same but that is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rationalize a way that your scenario works, F-22s and F-35s do everything they can to manage their RF emissions and retain the situational awareness advantage. If they see this RF source (jammer) they are going to silently approach it from a rear quarter angle for a kill and splash it. You really need to open up your mind on tactics with stealth aircraft and passive detection, you seem to be stuck in the 70s here. Hey they can't see us but we can see them, so let's start jamming so we're even. Nope.



Daryl Hunt said:


> You seem to think that Stealth is the panacea of all things.  Newsflash:  When a fighter with a good IR Detector that can target gets within launch stealth doesn't mean a damned thing.


Nope, never said that but I hey you're arguing for me again, surprise surprise!

Stealth isn't a panacea, but it combined with 5th gen sensor suits it allows for some tactics that you can't even allow yourself to consider are useful. Passive detection and tracking, coming in unseen for a kill shot. You greatly overestimate how useful an IR detector is when you don't even know where to look or whether any opposing aircraft are in the sky. Go read about Typhoons with Pirate IRST in exercises against F-22s, the only time they had a chance was when scenarios were tested where the fighters were intentionally put in WVR situations, in the open sky they were killed just like everyone else without even knowing where the F-22 was that killed them.  IRST isn't 360 degree coverage, and another aircraft that knows your course doesn't need to approach from your front field of view where all your sensors are strongest.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be trying to treat me like you would Monobreath.  While I generally agree with much of what you say, not this time.  You are showing two traits that lose wars;  naivity and arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> Expressing skepticism on your claim that an ECM jammer can turn the battlespace into a WVR fight is hardly arrogance, especially given that you've been completely unable to come close to saying how.
Click to expand...


And you are saying that there is a 100% chance it can't happen.  Now, that's arrogance if I ever heard of it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Russians only gets one SOJammer while you get unlimited  F-22s and F-35s.  Thank you for allowing them to have that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you're misstating what I said yet again. Not once did I say there are unlimited F-22s/F-35s, and not once did I say they get on standoff jammer. I really should do a summary of every argument you've attributed to me that I never made, there has been one in almost every post you've made. Terrible habit.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chances are, it won't be a fighter doing the SOJ.  It's going to be  a much larger, more powerful signal aircraft.  The US will be doing the same with the ECs.  There is going to be sections in the battlefield that will be completely void of detection on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have some large aircraft flying in behind some fighter aircraft that is doing standoff jamming in the direction those planes are flying, and you're just going to hope that any enemy aircraft that you cannot see will happen to be directly ahead of your fighter aircraft so they fall within it's noise cone so that the fighters will be protected. They would have detected you from very far away passively due to your RF noise and know your course, but nah they won't take advantage of this to approach at any advantageous angle they have no choice but to intercept from ahead of you where your sensors would be strongest. You're also going to hope they don't decide to just target this big slow aircraft that is doing the standoff jamming, since unlike with IADS components on the ground the fighters can move at supersonic speeds to close the range to the jamming source.
> 
> Sorry dude but you clearly don't understand how standoff jamming works, which is why this fantastic scenario you're constructing is so funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can spew all your BS but in the end, both sides are equipped to fight this type of battle and if any enemy Fighter gets within 35 miles of a F-22 or a F-35, the US Fighters can, and probably will, be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False, they can be 35 miles from an F-22 and not even know it's there until the AMRAAM coming up their tailpipe goes active.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes only a few minutes of closure at Mach 1.6 to close from 80 miles to 35 miles.  The US is going to be doing much the same thing.  Dirty Jammers that are just outside of your launch range coming from different angles leaves voids and in those voids, the 4th gen fighters can operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Closing to what? In this bizarre hypothetical you've built the Russian planes are flying blind so don't even know there are F-22s or F-35s in the sky to try to close a distance on. You keep forgetting that you're saying the Russians are broadcasting the position of the jamming aircraft so the F-22s and F-35s can track and target them passively, you have absolutely zero information that anything else is in the sky.
> 
> You say the US is going to be doing the same but that is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rationalize a way that your scenario works, F-22s and F-35s do everything they can to manage their RF emissions and retain the situational awareness advantage. If they see this RF source (jammer) they are going to silently approach it from a rear quarter angle for a kill and splash it. You really need to open up your mind on tactics with stealth aircraft and passive detection, you seem to be stuck in the 70s here. Hey they can't see us but we can see them, so let's start jamming so we're even. Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that Stealth is the panacea of all things.  Newsflash:  When a fighter with a good IR Detector that can target gets within launch stealth doesn't mean a damned thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, never said that but I hey you're arguing for me again, surprise surprise!
> 
> Stealth isn't a panacea, but it combined with 5th gen sensor suits it allows for some tactics that you can't even allow yourself to consider are useful. Passive detection and tracking, coming in unseen for a kill shot. You greatly overestimate how useful an IR detector is when you don't even know where to look or whether any opposing aircraft are in the sky. Go read about Typhoons with Pirate IRST in exercises against F-22s, the only time they had a chance was when scenarios were tested where the fighters were intentionally put in WVR situations, in the open sky they were killed just like everyone else without even knowing where the F-22 was that killed them.  IRST isn't 360 degree coverage, and another aircraft that knows your course doesn't need to approach from your front field of view where all your sensors are strongest.
Click to expand...


And you are saying that Stealth is infallible.  Hence the 17 to 1 rate for the F-35.  That means that once the stealth was defeated and so was the F-35.  And the SU-35 and SU-27 is much better at IR detection than the F-18 or the F-15 is.  And the bag of avionics sensors on the SU-35 is better than the F-18, 16 or 15 is right now.  And we are talking right now.  And, once again, you are allowing only one enemy aircraft to do the searching.  It doesn't work that way.  How Monoboy of you.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> And you are saying that there is a 100% chance it can't happen.  Now, that's arrogance if I ever heard of it.


No, I'm saying I'm skeptical that it's possible to turn a battlespace into a WVR fight using barrage jamming. Given you've been unable to explain how it could be done, I have no reason to alter this viewpoint.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> And you are saying that Stealth is infallible


Reread the last few pages of this thread if your memory is so short. I clearly stated that stealth is no panacea, yet you keep going to this strawman fallacy of trying to equate someone pointing out it's advantages and tactics to it being infallible.



Daryl Hunt said:


> Hence the 17 to 1 rate for the F-35.  That means that once the stealth was defeated and so was the F-35.


And here is part two of the strawman fallacy... above you create an argument I never made, then here you attack what you created. You do it pretty much every post, it's funny.



Daryl Hunt said:


> And the SU-35 and SU-27 is much better at IR detection than the F-18 or the F-15 is.  And the bag of avionics sensors on the SU-35 is better than the F-18, 16 or 15 is right now.  And we are talking right now.


Okay, what are the specifics of  the IR system used by aggressor F-16s, and how do they compare to the system used on the SU-27? The SU-27s might be "much better" I have no idea but to state this as fact you must have amazing insight into the actual technical specifications of the IRST system they use in Red Flag to simulate Russian fighters. So let's hear it, how is it so much better? What kind do the F-16s fly with? 






Of course all this is irrelevant because my position has been that it won't become an IR fight if a group of Russian planes are flying along throwing out as much RF noise as they can trying to jam targets they don't know exist. I've explained how F-22s and F-35s would be able to track their location passively and approach from a rear quarter where to avoid frontal sensors and shoot them out of the sky. However you just keep ignoring this since you can't refute it, and talking about frontal aspect IR detectors with short ranges. 

What are your thoughts on Typhoons with IRST getting chewed up by F-22s at BVR? I'd be happy to source interviews with German pilots stating that despite having that IR sensor they couldn't find the F-22s and got shot down every time without even knowing they were being targeted.




Daryl Hunt said:


> And, once again, you are allowing only one enemy aircraft to do the searching.  It doesn't work that way.  How Monoboy of you.


False, you're misstating my position for about the 10th time. I'm "allowing" them to search all they want, my argument is since they are broadcasting RF they will be detected from much farther away passively by F-22s while far outside effective range of IR sensors, which can then approach from advantageous angles to shoot an AMRAAM up their tailpipe before they even know an F-22 is targeting them. First look, first shot, first kill.  I'm in awe of how naive you are about the advantages of knowing where your opponent is and where they are heading well before they know you're even there.

I know await you, being unable to explain away this, to reframe waht I said as something completely different like you do in every single post of this discussion. What's it going to be this time, claiming I said F-22s get to magically appear anywhere they want? Claiming I believe stealth is unbeatable? Claiming I said Russian planes aren't allowed to use their sensors? What's the next straw man from Darryl?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are saying that there is a 100% chance it can't happen.  Now, that's arrogance if I ever heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying I'm skeptical that it's possible to turn a battlespace into a WVR fight using barrage jamming. Given you've been unable to explain how it could be done, I have no reason to alter this viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Use your imagination.  Open your mind and close your mouth, not the other way around.  The fact remains, jamming works like Stealth in many ways.  It's not fool proof.  But it does make the combatants have to get closer to each other in order to effectively fight.  Stealth can be somewhat combated by jamming and jamming can be somewhat combated by stealth.  Using Logic and Physics, that means the combatants will have to be closer to engage each other.  The one that does it the best will be further away.  You can't change science no matter how locked in you get.  

During Vietnam, the US did it routinely with both Ground and Aircraft using EC birds.  During Desert Storm and the one before that, it was done routinely by the US.  It's done today in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.  These are all Stand Off Jammers that can even take out cell phones operation.  Not just listen in on the Cell Phone but cripple them as well.  And you don't just use one bird to do it. You position a number of them to cover a large area where you have blind spots that 4th Gen birds can operate in and it also allows 5th gen to get even closer.  But even so, at some point, the signals you are jamming will overpower the jamming signal the closer your birds get to the source.  At that point, the 4th gens can be fired on first.  And then the 5th gens can be fired on even closer.  You may even have to use a fighter like the F-35 to do a short burst to blind a site that is stronger than the rest that has accomplished a lockon and maybe fire solution for a few minutes while it's being taken out.  Not all sites will have the same range, power or capability.  And neither will all Aircraft.  But the EC-135 and EC-130 will be allowing the Fighters and Bombers to get a bit closer.  Meanwhile, the Russians will be doing exactly the same thing with their IL birds.  Then we are going to add in the Command Posts of both sides with extremely powerful radar that is just outside of launch range of the enemies attack missiles.  Then we are going to keep adding in more variables.  Some measures will work like you believe they must.  But others will not.  In the end, it's going to be a slug fest and there may even be losses of Tankers, EC and ILs in the mix.    You keep forgetting (or in convenience) that both sides will be fairly evenly matched and that is what keeps it from happening.  Parity means that neither side can have a decisive win so neither side instigates the battle.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are saying that Stealth is infallible
> 
> 
> 
> Reread the last few pages of this thread if your memory is so short. I clearly stated that stealth is no panacea, yet you keep going to this strawman fallacy of trying to equate someone pointing out it's advantages and tactics to it being infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the 17 to 1 rate for the F-35.  That means that once the stealth was defeated and so was the F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here is part two of the strawman fallacy... above you create an argument I never made, then here you attack what you created. You do it pretty much every post, it's funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the SU-35 and SU-27 is much better at IR detection than the F-18 or the F-15 is.  And the bag of avionics sensors on the SU-35 is better than the F-18, 16 or 15 is right now.  And we are talking right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, what are the specifics of  the IR system used by aggressor F-16s, and how do they compare to the system used on the SU-27? The SU-27s might be "much better" I have no idea but to state this as fact you must have amazing insight into the actual technical specifications of the IRST system they use in Red Flag to simulate Russian fighters. So let's hear it, how is it so much better? What kind do the F-16s fly with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course all this is irrelevant because my position has been that it won't become an IR fight if a group of Russian planes are flying along throwing out as much RF noise as they can trying to jam targets they don't know exist. I've explained how F-22s and F-35s would be able to track their location passively and approach from a rear quarter where to avoid frontal sensors and shoot them out of the sky. However you just keep ignoring this since you can't refute it, and talking about frontal aspect IR detectors with short ranges.
> 
> What are your thoughts on Typhoons with IRST getting chewed up by F-22s at BVR? I'd be happy to source interviews with German pilots stating that despite having that IR sensor they couldn't find the F-22s and got shot down every time without even knowing they were being targeted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, once again, you are allowing only one enemy aircraft to do the searching.  It doesn't work that way.  How Monoboy of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False, you're misstating my position for about the 10th time. I'm "allowing" them to search all they want, my argument is since they are broadcasting RF they will be detected from much farther away passively by F-22s while far outside effective range of IR sensors, which can then approach from advantageous angles to shoot an AMRAAM up their tailpipe before they even know an F-22 is targeting them. First look, first shot, first kill.  I'm in awe of how naive you are about the advantages of knowing where your opponent is and where they are heading well before they know you're even there.
> 
> I know await you, being unable to explain away this, to reframe waht I said as something completely different like you do in every single post of this discussion. What's it going to be this time, claiming I said F-22s get to magically appear anywhere they want? Claiming I believe stealth is unbeatable? Claiming I said Russian planes aren't allowed to use their sensors? What's the next straw man from Darryl?
Click to expand...


You keep allowing only one Russian Aircraft against a sky full of F-22s and F-35s.  And you don't allow the Russians to use the IL systems.  Both sides are about equal and it very well might get things down to 35 to 40 miles distance which the Russians have an advantage in numbers alone.  The US is just now starting to equip the F-22 and the F-15 with IR Pods.  The numbers are very low.  And we are talking about right now, not some time in the future.  If you want to allow the Future, that means I get to use all the crap that Monobreath wants to throw in as well.  Beam Me Up Scotty.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The fact remains, jamming works like Stealth in many ways.  It's not fool proof.  But it does make the combatants have to get closer to each other in order to effectively fight.  Stealth can be somewhat combated by jamming and jamming can be somewhat combated by stealth.  Using Logic and Physics, that means the combatants will have to be closer to engage each other.  The one that does it the best will be further away.  You can't change science no matter how locked in you get.


You keep saying this, but have yet to be able to articulate how jamming makes it a WVR fight. I've explained numerous times how jamming assets can be engaged from BVR. It seems you realize whatever scenario you're constructing makes no sense, run off to google, then come back shouting something new like "standoff jamming" without even grasping how that is employed and why it makes no sense for what you're trying to accomplish.




Daryl Hunt said:


> During Vietnam, the US did it routinely with both Ground and Aircraft using EC birds.  During Desert Storm and the one before that, it was done routinely by the US.  It's done today in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.  These are all Stand Off Jammers that can even take out cell phones operation.  Not just listen in on the Cell Phone but cripple them as well.  And you don't just use one bird to do it. You position a number of them to cover a large area where you have blind spots that 4th Gen birds can operate in and it also allows 5th gen to get even closer.  But even so, at some point, the signals you are jamming will overpower the jamming signal the closer your birds get to the source.  At that point, the 4th gens can be fired on first.  And then the 5th gens can be fired on even closer.  You may even have to use a fighter like the F-35 to do a short burst to blind a site that is stronger than the rest that has accomplished a lockon and maybe fire solution for a few minutes while it's being taken out.  Not all sites will have the same range, power or capability.  And neither will all Aircraft.  But the EC-135 and EC-130 will be allowing the Fighters and Bombers to get a bit closer.  Meanwhile, the Russians will be doing exactly the same thing with their IL birds.  Then we are going to add in the Command Posts of both sides with extremely powerful radar that is just outside of launch range of the enemies attack missiles.  Then we are going to keep adding in more variables.  Some measures will work like you believe they must.  But others will not.  In the end, it's going to be a slug fest and there may even be losses of Tankers, EC and ILs in the mix.


Lots of great history information here, but the fact USA can do jamming does not mean an F-22 or F-35 is going to purposely give away it's position by engaging in jamming against an opposing aircraft that isn't even using it's radar and for which it already has situational awareness advantage. You keep trying to pigeonhole this scenario into something that works for your logic, and it keeps failing.





Daryl Hunt said:


> You keep forgetting (or in convenience) that both sides will be fairly evenly matched and that is what keeps it from happening.  Parity means that neither side can have a decisive win so neither side instigates the battle.


1. False. I'm not forgetting and haven't made anything unevenly matched, not once have I said there are more USA birds or more Russian birds this is just you doing what you've done in every post: manufacture something to argue against.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You keep allowing only one Russian Aircraft against a sky full of F-22s and F-35s.  And you don't allow the Russians to use the IL systems.


False, false, false. No matter how many times you tell this lie it's false.

I have never said there is only one Russian aircraft,  I have never said there is a sky full of F-22s and F-35s, and I have never said anyone can't use any sensor. You have an interesting habit of whenever it is explained to you how something would be countered you suddenly invent a completely different argument because you can't figure out to support your position against what was actually said. Examples:

Drain: The IRST would be ineffective because F-22 detected you from BVR so can close from the rear outside it's FOV
Darryl: Omigod you're saying they aren't allowed to use IRST sensors!

Drain: Deception jamming wouldn't work in same area as barrage jamming since deception couldn't send out the false signal in that noise environment
Darryl: Omigod you're limiting them to only one jammer!

Drain: Standoff jamming is done on static ground targets since jamming plane must maintain vector aligning the plane it's masking and the target radar
Darryl: Omigod you're only allowing one plane for the Russians!

Drain: Russians wouldn't be trying to close on the F-22s because you said they were flying without radar on, they are blind and don't know F-22s are there
Darryl: Omigod you're allowing a sky full of F-22s

Your notions about how air combat would play out being incorrect and me explaining why is entirely different than all this BS about me artificially limiting either side.



Daryl Hunt said:


> Both sides are about equal and it very well might get things down to 35 to 40 miles distance which the Russians have an advantage in numbers alone.  The US is just now starting to equip the F-22 and the F-15 with IR Pods.  The numbers are very low.  And we are talking about right now, not some time in the future.  If you want to allow the Future, that means I get to use all the crap that Monobreath wants to throw in as well.  Beam Me Up Scotty.


Still waiting on your information on how SU-27 has superior IRST than what F-22s have trained against with Typhoons and F-16s. You stated with authority that the Russian system is better, yet when asked for specifics you're suddenly off on yet another tangent. It's funny you mentioning Manonthestreet so much, you're doing the exact same thing... stating something then dropping it like a hot potato when corned on it.


----------



## DrainBamage

In fact since you've purposely exaggerated just about every argument I've made about why what you're saying wouldn't work, I'll go ahead and clarify in this post and refer to it going forward. That way when you state what I "believe" it will be easier to set you straight.

1. I'm not saying there is only one or a limited number of Russian jets

2. I'm not saying Russians cannot use radars or IR sensors, they can use whatever they want

3. I'm not saying Russians only get one jammer, you can include as many as you want

4. I'm not saying unlimited USA jets in the skies

5. I'm not saying stealth is infallible

I'm sure you'll think of another straw man argument, and equally sure you're repeat these, but we'll just add to the list as you continue to make them up.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains, jamming works like Stealth in many ways.  It's not fool proof.  But it does make the combatants have to get closer to each other in order to effectively fight.  Stealth can be somewhat combated by jamming and jamming can be somewhat combated by stealth.  Using Logic and Physics, that means the combatants will have to be closer to engage each other.  The one that does it the best will be further away.  You can't change science no matter how locked in you get.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying this, but have yet to be able to articulate how jamming makes it a WVR fight. I've explained numerous times how jamming assets can be engaged from BVR. It seems you realize whatever scenario you're constructing makes no sense, run off to google, then come back shouting something new like "standoff jamming" without even grasping how that is employed and why it makes no sense for what you're trying to accomplish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> During Vietnam, the US did it routinely with both Ground and Aircraft using EC birds.  During Desert Storm and the one before that, it was done routinely by the US.  It's done today in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.  These are all Stand Off Jammers that can even take out cell phones operation.  Not just listen in on the Cell Phone but cripple them as well.  And you don't just use one bird to do it. You position a number of them to cover a large area where you have blind spots that 4th Gen birds can operate in and it also allows 5th gen to get even closer.  But even so, at some point, the signals you are jamming will overpower the jamming signal the closer your birds get to the source.  At that point, the 4th gens can be fired on first.  And then the 5th gens can be fired on even closer.  You may even have to use a fighter like the F-35 to do a short burst to blind a site that is stronger than the rest that has accomplished a lockon and maybe fire solution for a few minutes while it's being taken out.  Not all sites will have the same range, power or capability.  And neither will all Aircraft.  But the EC-135 and EC-130 will be allowing the Fighters and Bombers to get a bit closer.  Meanwhile, the Russians will be doing exactly the same thing with their IL birds.  Then we are going to add in the Command Posts of both sides with extremely powerful radar that is just outside of launch range of the enemies attack missiles.  Then we are going to keep adding in more variables.  Some measures will work like you believe they must.  But others will not.  In the end, it's going to be a slug fest and there may even be losses of Tankers, EC and ILs in the mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of great history information here, but the fact USA can do jamming does not mean an F-22 or F-35 is going to purposely give away it's position by engaging in jamming against an opposing aircraft that isn't even using it's radar and for which it already has situational awareness advantage. You keep trying to pigeonhole this scenario into something that works for your logic, and it keeps failing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep forgetting (or in convenience) that both sides will be fairly evenly matched and that is what keeps it from happening.  Parity means that neither side can have a decisive win so neither side instigates the battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. False. I'm not forgetting and haven't made anything unevenly matched, not once have I said there are more USA birds or more Russian birds this is just you doing what you've done in every post: manufacture something to argue against.
Click to expand...


You can stop this anytime you wish.  I am NOT Monobreath.  You can try and change the subject, red herring and more all you wish but I have the experience and you don't and can look back at the history of the United States Air Force without Google or any other help.  I also have an extensive background in Military Air History that you don't have.  So keep going.  The more you dig, the deeper the hole.  You may wish to just stop digging sometime.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> In fact since you've purposely exaggerated just about every argument I've made about why what you're saying wouldn't work, I'll go ahead and clarify in this post and refer to it going forward. That way when you state what I "believe" it will be easier to set you straight.
> 
> 1. I'm not saying there is only one or a limited number of Russian jets
> 
> 2. I'm not saying Russians cannot use radars or IR sensors, they can use whatever they want
> 
> 3. I'm not saying Russians only get one jammer, you can include as many as you want
> 
> 4. I'm not saying unlimited USA jets in the skies
> 
> 5. I'm not saying stealth is infallible
> 
> I'm sure you'll think of another straw man argument, and equally sure you're repeat these, but we'll just add to the list as you continue to make them up.



Just keep digging, cupcake.  The hole just gets deeper.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You can stop this anytime you wish.  I am NOT Monobreath.  You can try and change the subject, red herring and more all you wish but I have the experience and you don't and can look back at the history of the United States Air Force without Google or any other help.  I also have an extensive background in Military Air History that you don't have.  So keep going.  The more you dig, the deeper the hole.  You may wish to just stop digging sometime.


Speaking of red herring, this is an entire post that neither addresses absolutely nothing in the thread other than implying I should believe you because you think you know a lot. I don't accept that, and I would hope you wouldn't either.

So, still waiting on the technical specs on why the SU-27s IR system is so much better than the IR system the uses to train with on aggressor squadron F-16s. You threw that out there as fact but sure lost interest quickly when asked to provide specifics. Should be an easy one you could try to pull off since you've clearly been unable to express how barrage jamming makes it a WVR fight despite the flailing with AMRAAMs going ballistic, standoff jamming used against fast moving air targets that you don't even know are in the sky, stealth fighters with massive situational awareness advantage deciding to broadcast their position by jamming radars that you said weren't even on, deception jammers being used in the same space as noise jamming, nose mounted IRST seeing an F-22 approaching from behind, and all the other hilarious notions you've dreamed up in this thread so far.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Just keep digging, cupcake.  The hole just gets deeper.


Hey man I had to make that post because you were leaning so much on making up straw man arguments. It'll save me some typing just being able to reference those points that clarify I don't believe any of those exaggerated positions you're attempted to attribute to me.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep digging, cupcake.  The hole just gets deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey man I had to make that post because you were leaning so much on making up straw man arguments. It'll save me some typing just being able to reference those points that clarify I don't believe any of those exaggerated positions you're attempted to attribute to me.
Click to expand...


Actually, you should be scared to know that most of what I posted would be a reality if it came to that.  And that is exactly the reason it won't happen.  It scares them as much as it scares me.  So both sides claim that they would win and no one dies today.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can stop this anytime you wish.  I am NOT Monobreath.  You can try and change the subject, red herring and more all you wish but I have the experience and you don't and can look back at the history of the United States Air Force without Google or any other help.  I also have an extensive background in Military Air History that you don't have.  So keep going.  The more you dig, the deeper the hole.  You may wish to just stop digging sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of red herring, this is an entire post that neither addresses absolutely nothing in the thread other than implying I should believe you because you think you know a lot. I don't accept that, and I would hope you wouldn't either.
> 
> So, still waiting on the technical specs on why the SU-27s IR system is so much better than the IR system the uses to train with on aggressor squadron F-16s. You threw that out there as fact but sure lost interest quickly when asked to provide specifics. Should be an easy one you could try to pull off since you've clearly been unable to express how barrage jamming makes it a WVR fight despite the flailing with AMRAAMs going ballistic, standoff jamming used against fast moving air targets that you don't even know are in the sky, stealth fighters with massive situational awareness advantage deciding to broadcast their position by jamming radars that you said weren't even on, deception jammers being used in the same space as noise jamming, nose mounted IRST seeing an F-22 approaching from behind, and all the other hilarious notions you've dreamed up in this thread so far.
Click to expand...


I will as soon as I get back from my next sooper secrit mission spying on Russian Military.  But until then, you will just have to believe that the Russians/Soviets have had IRST for decades while the US has not.  In fact, only about a handful of Guard F-15Cs and 16s have it installed today.  And, yes, the agressor squadron of F-16s have it installed.  As well as about 500 F-18E/F and Gs.  And it works.  The longer your Stealth bird stays in the air, the more fuel he burns and the less IR masking he can do through his fuel heat masking.  And it will depend on the distance the Us fighter has to fly to get to the battle whether he has an effective fuel load that he can keep his rearward most tanks full or not.  Even the F-22 can't mask his engine exhaust heat without the help of the fuel masking.  Here is a very good article and a very recent one for the US Military Air about Ir defenses.

The Pentagon Has Figured Out How to Hunt Enemy Stealth Fighters


----------



## there4eyeM

Spending so extraordinarily on this one system has cost dearly to alternatives that would be more advantageous, all in order to preserve the outdated thinking of backward-looking militarists.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Here is a very good article on IRST versus Radar. 

Airborne IRST properties and performance



*Airborne IRST properties and performance*
Posted by Picard578 on June 16, 2015

*Introduction*

IRST is a sensory device which uses IR (infrared) radiation for detection and targeting purposes. IR radiation has wavelength of 0,75 to 1.000 microns (micrometers), longer than wavelengths of color red in the visible spectrum (visible spectrum ranges from 0,39 to 0,7 microns, with violet at 0,4 and red at 0,7 microns). It is given off by all objects above absolute zero, though objects that are below average temperature of their surroundings will absorb far more IR radiation than they will give out. Unlike FLIR which is a targeting device, IRST can be used for initial detection as well.

Infrared radiation is divided into near infrared (0,75 – 1,4 microns), shortwave infrared (1,4 – 3 microns), midwave infrared (3 – 8 microns), longwave infrared (8 – 15 microns) and far infrared (15 – 1.000 microns). These have different properties. For example, glass is opaque to LWIR band but transparent to SWIR band, and significantly degradess image in MWIR band. MWIR sensors are far better at penetrating fog and clouds than other wavelengths, while LWIR sensors have superior atmospheric performance. As a result, while SWIR sensors can use glass, MWIR and LWIR sensors have to use exotic materials such as germanium and sapphire. 5-7 micron band suffers 100% absorption by water particles.

IR bands are also associated with temperatures of bodies producing radiation. Visible light is associated with temperatures above 1.000 *C. Next come IR bands: 0,7-4 microns (1.000 – 400 *C); 5-25 microns (400 – -150 *C) and 25-350 microns (this is a civilian, not military, division). Bodies at room temperature have radiation peak at around 10 microns, while 3-5 micron band is used in civilian applications for its effectiveness in tropical conditions.

In civillian purposes, astronomers use IR telescopes to penetrate dusty regions of space that block off visible light. NASA also has an airborne IR system – SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy) which is flown at altitudes of over 41.000 ft, allowing 85% of the entire IR spectrum to reach it. Its service ceilling is 45.000 ft.

First IRSTs were deployed in 1950s on F-101, F-102 and F-106 interceptors. They were also used in F-8E, F-4 (B and C models only) and Swedish J-35A and J-35F-2 (1965-1967). However, they were primitive and were slaved to the radar, as opposed to modern-day independent systems. Any IR radiation falling on the sensor would generate a blip; consequential high false alarm rate meant that IRST was typically only used for (manual) radar targeting.

In 1960s and 1970s, Soviets deployed IRST units on their MiG-23, MiG-31, Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters. This was intended to provide passive BVR surveillance capability to fighters, and also as a way of countering Western advantage in radar technology and countermeasures. In fact, MiG-23 and MiG-31 interceptors were able to track the SR-71 recon aircraft from large distance, possibly up to 100 kilometers. This was despite the fact that the system was rather primitive, and that MiG-31s own skin and canopy would reach temperatures of over 760 degrees Celsius during the intercepts. MiG-23 had an IRST capable of detecting the F-16 at 35-40 km head on and 60 km from the rear. Later developments of Su-27 and MiG-29 families all have internal IRST.

*General IRST properties*

Due to relatively shorter wavelength, IRST is more sensitive than radar to adverse weather conditions. Much of the infrared radiation is absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone. However, there are two wavelength “windows” in which very little infrared radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. These windows are at 3-5 and 8-12 microns. Both modern IRSTs and modern IR missile seekers typically operate in both bands. 3-5 mM band is optimized for detection of aircraft in afterburner, while 8-12 mM band is better suited for detection of subsonic or supercruising aircraft through aerodynamic heating of skin. More specifically, afterburner exhaust plume is more prominent in midwave than in logwave band, with most emissions being in 2-8 mM wavelength band, while emissions from nonafterburning plume are only useful in 4,15-4,2 mM band. Blackbody radiation from a warm object is most prominent in 10-15 mM band, and only objects above ~300 K give appreciable MWIR emissions (still inferior to to LWIR band). As a result, LWIR detectors have good sensitivity against targets at ambient temperatures.

Unlike other IR bands, these two bands are comparatively altitude-insensitive when it comes to detection performance, as it can be seen from an IR absorpion chart in the next section; they are also less affected by water content. Comparing both bands, 3-5 mM band is less affected by aerosoil while 8-12 mM band has longer detection range and is less affected by clouds. Consequently, up until appearance of dual-band systems, midwave band was preferred for ground attack while longwave band was preferred for air-to-air usage.

While IRSTs can detect even relatively cool targets through thin cloud cover, detection range is reduced (more than it is in case of radar), and thicker clouds can significantly degrade detection range. As a result, IRST is most useful for air superiority fighters, which typically operate at 30.000 ft and above – well above normal cloud cover and in relatively thin atmosphere.* ** Only clouds typically present at altitudes above 8 km (~26.000 ft) are those of cirrus variety, which are IR transparent. While dense cumulonimbus clouds can reach extreme heights (60.000-75.000 ft), it is very rare; vast majority does not reach above 20.000 ft. They are also very hazardous to aircraft (especially those of stealth variety), with frequent lightning discharges and large hailstones ranging from 0,5 to 5 cm in diameter, which can damage aircraft’s skin.









Due to its passive nature and shorter wavelength, IRST has major advantages over radar regarding ID capabilities and ground attack performance due to increased resolution. In particular, IRST has better ability to project image of the target (to either cockpit displays or HMD), thus giving a fighter aircraft ability to ID other aircraft at longer ranges than would be possible with radar NCTR modes. IRST also has beter capability for differentiating aircraft in formation than radar does due to better angular resolution – possibly up to 40 times more accurate than radar’s. Still, IRST might have a regular magnified optical sight added for help with identification in clear weather.

Type and location of IRST is indicative of aircraft’s mission. Air superiority fighters will have dual band or longwave system positioned in front of the canopy on upper nose surface, while ground attack aircraft will have a dual band or midwave system positioned below the nose. Dual band system is preferable in both cases as it helps eliminate clutter, though it is not as beneficial for ground attack aircraft as it is for air superiority fighters.

Major advantage over the radar is that it cannot be easily jammed. As a result, actual tracking and engagement range of IRST can be expected to be greater than that of radar, even if latter has a major advantage in initial detection range. Jamming IRST with an infrared laser is a possibility (in theory), but it is very difficult if not impossible to pull off against a maneuvering aircraft. Operating modes are similar to radar: multiple target track (permitting engagement of multiple targets; similar in nature to radar’s track while scan), single target track and slaved acquisition (where IRST is slaved to another sensor, such as radar or RWR).

Being a passive sensor, IRST alone has issues with range finding. There are some workarounds. Obvious one is laser rangefinder, but being an active sensor it means that the target is warned of the impending attack (IRST still retains its passive surveillance advantage over the radar). Second one is triangulation, which can be done in several ways: datalinking two or more aircraft together, flying in a zig-zag / weaving pattern and measuring apparent target shift, or flying in straight line perpendicular to the target while doing the same. First two are usable against aircraft, while last one is only practical against ground-based targets. Target motion analysis can also be combined with atmospheric propagation model and/or apparent size of the target in order to provide a more accurate rangefinding, or these modes can be used as standalones. Radiance difference between target and the background is also a possibility. Doppler shift may be used to provide estimate of target’s speed relative to the fighters, which can be used to help with rangefinding; this is still questionable as it does not show up well at short distances, measurement may be impeded by the atmosphere, and is typically used by platforms and against targets with relatively predictable paths, which fighters are not. Exception is radar ranging, but in this case wavelength is already known beforehand to a great degree of precision. That being said, the only determinant for Doppler shift is *relative* speed of sensor compared to the object emitting radiation – and modern IR sensors used in astronomy can measure velocity of a star down to 1 meter per second (relative to Earth). For comparison, speed of sound at >=40.000 ft is 294,9 meters per second, and two closing fighters will be doing it at relative speeds between Mach 1,5 and 3,6. It is questionable wether Doppler shift is, or may, be used in airborne IRST.

It should be noted that while not knowing range of the target limits maximum engagement range, it does not preclude beyond visual range engagement, as missile can fly along the line of sight towards the target. This does create issues with end-game engagement, though a missile with active radar head is capable of pulling a lead, and even one with IR head might be capable of doing so albeit with less precision. Such engagement profile is in some ways superior to the classical one, as IRST’s greater angular precision will mean less possibility of a missile flying past the target without acquiring it.

Imaging IRST can also be used as a landing aid in no or poor visibility conditions (night, fog, rain etc.). While helpful for any aircraft, this is especially important for fighter and ground attack aircraft expected to operate from austere air strips.

It should be noted that IRSTs detection range is range at which probability of detection exceeds ~95% treshold, in clear-sky conditions. Actual range at which target is detected can be higher or lower. Also, heating of sensor due to friction during high-speed flight can degrade its performance somewhat.

While modern QWIP IRSTs offer the best performance, they have to be cooled to extremely low temperatures: 65 K is not uncommon. Quantum well is a potential well in which electrons are trapped. When excited, they can be ejected from the well, and produce current if external voltage is applied. QWIP photodetector / IRST can measure how much light comes from various sources by measuring the current. The longer the wavelength of light, the less energy the light has to give the electrons and the colder the detector must be to avoid excessive thermal excitations.

IRST can use scanning or staring array. Staring sensor uses one detecting element for each part of the image within field of view. This means that all detecting elements are simultaneously exposed to the image of the object, or a frame. Standard frame rate is 30 Hz, and dwell time is equal to the frame rate (1/30 of a second). Longer dwell time results in a more sensitive detector and less noise.

Scanning system can use a single element, which then sequentially scans the instantaneous field of view (determined by the aperture). Scanning system is typically a rotaring mirror. This system is cheaper than a staring array. Its output is serial as only IFOV is directed on the detector at any one time. Dwell time is determined by both frame rate and number of pixels in the image; a system with 30 Hz refresh rate and standard VGA monitor of 640×400 pixels has a dwell time of 1/7.680.000 od a second, which leads to increased noise in the system and reduced sensitivity.

(Note that a staring array still can be mounted in a turret which can scan the area in front of the aircraft).

*French Dassault Rafale has an optronics suite (IR+visual) and radar. Radar is considered primary air-to-ground sensor, while OSF is considered primary air-to-air sensor.

** F-35, a ground attack aircraft, will also typically fly at 30.000 ft during ingress/egress.

*Counter-stealth performance*

It is a general wisdom that IRST is of limited usefulness due to its sensitivity to adverse weather conditions. However, most modern stealth fighters (excepting the F-35 and J-31 tactical bombers) are intended to operate at high altitudes – above 50.000 ft – where ambient temperatures range from -30 to -60 degrees Celsius, which helps provide excellent contrast. Air at this altitude is also very dry, with 99,8% of the atmospheric water being below 45.000 ft. Combined with low air density and low aerosoil content, this means that there is very little atmospheric absorption of IR radiation. This applies especially to the longwave band, but detection capability is significantly improved in most bands as can be seen from the image below.





Stealth aircraft are designed to have certain IR signature reduction measures, but effectiveness of these is rather limited due to basic physics. To fly, aircraft has to overcome two basic forces: gravity and drag. Drag is created due to friction with air, compressibility effects and lift. To overcome gravity, aircraft needs lift. To generate lift, aircraft has to move forward and overcome drag. As a result, aircraft has to perform work – which creates heat. Indeed the largest IR sources on the fighter aircraft are its engines. Jet engines work by burning fuel in order to heat up huge quantities of air, which is then propelled out of the rear in order to push the aircraft forward. This leads to significant heat – engine itself is very hot (especially turbines), as is the exhaust nozzle. Engine heats up airframe surrounding it, which can be detected. Exhaust plume is also very hot, though much of the radiation is typically absorbed by the atmosphere (this depends on the altitude – refer to the image before this paragraph).

Other than the engines themselves and their exhaust, there are other sources of IR radiation. Any moving objects have to push the air out of the way. If object is fast – for example, an aircraft flying at high subsonic or supersonic speeds – air cannot move out of the way quickly enough. This leads to compression of the air in front of the aircraft, which in turn leads to heating of said air. At Mach 1,7, a supercruising fighter generates shock cones with stagnation temperature of 87 degrees Celsius; shock cone forms above Mach 0,8 and at around Mach 1 it achieves temperature of -13 degrees Celsius. Shock cone also increases frontal area presented to the sensor about 10 times (its diameter depends largely on aircraft’s wing span). As the air moves out of the way for the aircraft, it also creates significant friction with the aircraft itself, leading to heating of the aircraft’s skin. In a jet fighter, hottest parts of the airframe other than the engine nozzles are tip of the nose, front of the canopy, as well as leading edges (of wings, tail(s) and air intakes).





As mentioned before, MiG-31 would heat up to 760 degrees Celsius during intercepts due to aerodynamic heating alone. Airframe temperature due to friction can reach -29 degrees Celsius at Mach 0,8, 54,4 degrees Celsius at Mach 1,6, 83,3 degrees Celsius at Mach 1,8 and 116,8 degrees Celsius at Mach 2,0. F-22 has two pitot tubes – one at each side of the nose – which are heated to 270* C during flight operations to prevent them from icing at high altitude. Avionics have to be cooled – especially radar. Heat exhaust is typically located at fighter’s upper surface – just behind the cockpit in Gripen, and about one canopy length behind it for the F-22. F-35 is in even worse situation since it uses fuel as a coolant, and said fuel completely surrounds its engine. This has the effect of increasing its IR signature as well as the possibility of bursting into flames if hit.

These temperatures can be compared to the ambient air (Standard US Atmosphere). F-22 achieves maximum cruise speed of Mach 1,72 at ~38.000 ft without afterburner, and maximum speed of Mach 2,0 at between 38.000 and 58.000 ft with afterburner. Above cca 53.000 ft it requires afterburner to fly, and can achieve maximum altitude of ~64.000 ft, where it is limited to maximum speed of Mach 1,6-1,8. Ambient temperature is -44,4 *C at 30.000 ft, -54,2 *C at 35.000 ft, -56,5 *C at 40.000 ft to 60.000 ft, and -55,2 *C at 70.000 ft. That is to say, difference between shock cone of a M 1,7 F-22 and ambient air will be around 130-145 * C, while temperature difference between airframe and ambient air will be cca 111 * C at Mach 1,6 and cca 172 * C at Mach 2,0. At Mach 1 difference will be 31-44 * C between shock cone and the ambient air; difference in temperature between airframe and ambient air will be 15-27 * C at Mach 0,8.

IRST sensor of Dassault Rafale’s OSF can, at 20.000 ft, detect a subsonic fighter-sized target at 80 km from the front and 130 km from the rear. At low altitude, range from the rear is 110 km, which would indicate frontal range of 68 km. F-22 achieves supercruise speed of Mach 1,72-1,75 at 38.000 ft. Assuming similar increase in range between 20.000 and 40.000 ft, OSF should be able to detect the subsonic F-22 at distance of 90-95 km from the front and 145-155 km from the rear. If F-22 is supercruising at Mach 1,70 and 40.000 ft (about the limit of its supercruise performance at that altitude), range increases to 270-285 km from the front and 435-465 km from the rear.

While fighter’s IR signature can be reduced by reducing speed, such course of action also has the effect of reducing one’s own weapons range, as well as making a rear-quarter surprise more likely. In either case, fighter will get detected by modern QWIP IRST before it reaches missile effective range (10-40 km for AIM-120D at most, and can be as low as 2 km).

It is possible to apply IR absorbent paints to a fighter in order to reduce IR emissions from systems inside it. This, at best, does not have any impact on aerodynamic heating. Some IR absorbent paints cause more friction than would otherwise be the case, increasing aerodynamic heating. RAM coatings also can increase friction. While it is not a significant factor in MWIR band, LWIR detectors can detect aircraft by detecting sunshine reflections from its surfaces, such as canopy.

Modern IRST systems can even detect missile launch from its nose cone heating – this is in fact a significant advantage for IR MAWS, as UV MAWS cannot detect missiles that have spent fuel. They are also sensitive enough for planets, birds, and (in air-to-ground) barbecue grills to be sources of clutter.

Note that even if an object is at the exact same temperature as its environment, it still emits blackbody radiation, most of it at longer wavelengths.

*Tactical impact*

Unlike radar, IRST is primarily a passive system. This allows a fighter aircraft, or a fighter group, to detect and track the enemy without latter being aware of their presence, thus gaining a significant initial advantage in the OODA loop. Even when the enemy is aware of the fighter’s presence, he has no way of knowing wether he has been detected, or is being targeted, until a significant shift in fighters’ posture (such as painting target with a rangefinder or shifting flight path or formation). For comparison, just turning on the radar warns the aircraft in very large area of scanning fighter’s presence – and said area is far larger than one covered by the radar. Not only does it give away fighter’s presence, but if the enemy has good enough listening equipment, it is possible to triangulate location and even identify the target through its unique radar signals. Even radio communications and datalinks can serve the same purpose.

If the enemy is using radar, it is possible to use data from radar warner to generate a bearing, after which IRST can be used in a “stare” mode – continuous track, during which photon impacts are combined over prolonged timeframe to detect a target at greater distances than would normally be possible. This mode is also present in radar systems, and like IRST, radar also has to be cued by other sensors to make use of it. But while using radar in such a manner basically guarantees than the enemy with a competent RWR will detect radar transmissions, IRST is undetectable. Even a short radar burst can allow the passive fighter to generate such bearing, albeit it will somewhat limit the precision.

If radars are jammed, or more likely turned off for fear of detection, first indication of IRST-equipped fighter’s presence that the enemy aircraft will get may be alarm from a missile warning system (or radar warning system if missile is using an active seeker), thus allowing only a short time for defensive reaction. (Simulated trials of ECR-90 have shown that its airborne detection range could be cut to less than 9 kilometers by jamming). If both sides have IRST, it comes down to sensor quality and IR signature differences.

Aircraft equipped with IRST, and using IR MAWS, can remain completely silent during the mission. If the enemy has no IRST, then he will have to turn on his own radar(s), allowing the passive aircraft excellent situational awareness, well beyond what using radar in addition to IRST would allow. Further, active usage of radar will allow geolocation of radar emitters, allowing the passive fighter to use IRST to engage such targets with high precision – thus gaining a “see first, strike first” capability. IRST-equipped aircraft is also not vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles. (Note that such missiles are not very hard to make, with basically all air-to-air engagement radars being in X band).

IRSTs shortcomings can be compensated for by using datalinks to network the fighter with other assets, such as other IRST-equipped fighters and radar-equipped AWACS. As a result, radar is not the primary onboard sensor any more, and is not actually even required.

Using datalink from AWACS (though AWACS is unlikely to survive for long in a shooting war) or ground radars, fighter can then approach the enemy from side or rear, in order to prevent detection by enemy’s own radar and maximize IRSTs detection range. Once target is acquired on IRST, fighter can pursue engagement completely independently. Of course, if enemy fighter uses its own radar, no AWACS is required. It should be noted that most, possibly all, fighter aircraft today lack the datalink capable of transferring amount of data necessary for a firing solution. Even if such datalink is deployed, it will be easy to jam. As a result, fighters have to rely on onboard sensors to create a firing solution (when Rafale shot down a target at 6 o’clock, shot was done with onboard sensors and within visual range; F-35 may have a similar capability).

Large radar-based fighters – such as the F-15, F-22, Flanker variants – can act as AWACS of sorts, providing radar image to smaller IRST-only fighters, which can then use such image to achieve optimal position for a surprise attack. This in turn will allow IRST-equipped fighters to focus the IRST and achieve detection ranges larger than could normally be achieved. Even if radars are jammed, radar-based fighters should be able to roughly tell positions of enemy fighters, unless DRFM, active cancellation or standoff jamming is used. Using IRST to generate a firing solution, and then launching an IR BVRAAM or ramjet RF BVRAAM (or, ideally, a ramjet IR BVRAAM, though such missile does not exist in Western inventory) at a surprised opponent will allow far higher kill probabilities than using an obvious radar for firing solution.

Still, using an AWACS with a huge IRST plus extensive ESM arrays might allow the same tactics without a drawback of warning the enemy that he has been detected, and without suffering vulnerability to decoys and jamming that radar has. Additional advantage of such system is that its effectiveness will not be significantly degraded even against VLO targets. On the other hand, while bad weather degrades IRSTs performance, it also degrades performance of stealth coatings (assuming that stealth fighters can safely enter storm clouds), thus combining radar AWACS with IRST-equipped fighters does make some sense, as does using both types of AWACS.

IRST is the best solution for engaging stealthy aircraft and cruise missiles. As it can be seen from the previous section, is impossible to significantly reduce IR signature of a high-speed, highly maneuverable aircraft, and even low-performance aircraft that do have very extensive IR signature reduction measures are still detectable at large distances by new QWIP imaging IRSTs. Even against “legacy” aircraft its is a better choice than radar, as radar cannot separate valid contacts from decoys except at very short range – especially if it is being jammed. As a result, only IRST-equipped fighters can effectively engage modern fighters at beyond visual range.

IRST can be used as a relatively cheap way of turning an old, possibly even WVR-only, platform into one capable of BVR combat. With PIRATE + MICA IR combination, even an old F-86 would gain a capability to shoot down enemy fighters from beyond visual range (that being said, issues of low cruise speed, deficient acceleration by today’s standards and no defense suite at all would remain, and would mean that even against the F-35, F-86 would not achieve positive kill/loss ratio).

Analytic simulations indicate that an IRST-equipped aircraft will have 230% better exchange ratio than a non-IRST equipped aircraft against a “legacy” target, and 370% better against a LO target.

*Specific IRST systems*

PIRATE

PIRATE is used by Eurofighter Typhoon, and it entered service in 2007. Its lead contractor is Selex ES. Selex holds the bulk of Western experience in IRST systems, and is also a sole supplier of the Skyward G IRST. Thales, another member of the Eurofirst consortium, also has extensive experience in the area.

PIRATE is a dual-band system (3-5 and 8-10 microns), combining long range detection capability of the longwave IRST with high resolution and all-weather performance of midwave one. It can track more than 200 targets, and has 140* field of regard in azimuth, with -15* depression angle. Sensor head weights 48 kg, with 60 kg (?) total weight.

Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 90 km from the front and 145 km from the rear. It has an ID range of 40 km, and can track a maximum of 200 targets. It is stated to be capable of passive ranging. Its ability to provide infrared image (which can be shown on cockpit displays and HMD) can, aside for ID purposes, also be used to help with flight operation in low visibility conditions.

(Note that range figures for Western IRSTs are most likely measured/estimated against Su-27, a massive aircraft with no IR signature reduction measures.)

Skyward G

Skyward G is a new IRST intended for use in Gripen E/F, and represents a technological improvement (in both hardware and software) over older PIRATE IRST it is based on. It is a staring imaging IRST. It is also smaller, with sensor head weighting 30 kg. Like PIRATE, it is a dual-band system covering midwave and longwave infrared bands, and can provide IR image on pilot’s helmet. Scan coverage is 160* in azimuth and 60* in elevation.

Skyward is stated to be capable of detecting all aircraft flying faster than 300-400 kts from skin friction alone – irrespective of any exhaust plume or engine IR signature reduction measures. Range for such detection is unstated.

OSF

OSF is an optical sensors suite used by Dassault Rafale. It consists of an IRST sensor and a video camera. Like PIRATE, its IR sensor is dual-band, using 3-5 and 8-12 micron bands.

Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 80 km from the front and 130 km from the rear (at 20.000 ft; 110 km at low altitude). Optical camera has ID range of 45 km, while IRST has an ID range of 40 (?) km. It was reported to have locked on a turboprop Transall through thin cloud cover.

EOTS

EOTS is a staring IR sensor. Unlike above IRST systems, it is primarily intended for ground attack, as a replacement for various IR targeting pods. As a result, it is a single-channel midwave IR system, limiting its detection performance against nonafterburning targets and in air-to-air role but providing all-weather performance. It weights 200 lbs / 90,7 kg.

It is also obsolete when compared to modern IR pods used by US Navy (in particular, newest versions of Sniper and Litening pods), being more than a decade old as of 2015. In fact, it is basically an internal version of Sniper XR pod which entered service in 2006, and has low resolution and detection range when compared to the Legion pod. From Sniper XR demo, it appears that identification range is 24 kilometers against fighter aircraft, though the aircraft in question was on the ground, and 45 kilometers against an airborne business jet, showing ID performance at most comparable to PIRATE. This suggests lower maximum detection range as PIRATE likely uses midwave channel for identification, but also has longer-ranged longwave channel. That being said, actual detection range performance may be better than suggested here. Its configuration also allows it quicker scan speeds than with traditional IRSTs.

OLS-27

OLS-27 is used on Su-27 fighter, and has a maximum range of 70 km.

OLS-30

OLS-30 is used on Su-30 fighters. Maximum detection range might be as high as 90 km, and weights 200 kg.

OLS-35

OLS-35 is a scanning array IRST used on Su-35 fighters. Detection range is 50 km head on and 90 km from the rear against a subsonic fighter-sized target. It can track 4 targets. Sensor head weights 60 kg.

OLS-50

OLS-50 is IRST for T-50/PAK FA fighter. It is the first QWIP system deployed on Russian fighters, which suggests far higher detection range than earlier systems as well as the ability to identify targets.

IRST-21

IRST-21 is a podded system in use with US military. It has field of regard of +-70 degrees (140 degrees) in both azimuth and elevation, and total weight of 67-83 kg. Like other Western IRST systems (and presumably most Russian systems listed), it is capable of generating weapons-quality tracks.

*Conclusion*

While historically IRST had major performance issues, modern IRST systems, especially Western ones, have mostly solved these issues. As a result, IRST can be expected to become a primary sensor in any air war between competent opponents, for the same reasons as those that led to night vision googles being used for night fighting in place of flashlights.

While US Department of Defense has a very long history of being “late to the party” when it comes to introducing simple, yet effective (even transformative) systems*, US military is currently taking baby steps to rectifying its lag in development and application of airborne IR sensors. This can be clearly seen from the F-35s inbuilt IRST (though that decision was only made on insistence of US Navy, which was also the first service to introduce the Legion pod, and generally has better understanding of passive IR systems than USAF**), and procurement of IR pods for the F-15C, F-16 and F-18 fleets. Legion pod procured is capable of generating weapons track. US Navy is also the service that initiated development of AIM-9X Block III, which is basically a BVR missile, with a range of 42 km.

One of reasons why United States have not put funds into developing IRST, and are even now using almost exclusively systems geared for air-to-ground performance that happen to have air-to-air option, is that IRST was seen as a threat to the AWACS program, and later on also to stealth fighters. Both of these were high-budget programs that USAF could not allow to disappear. With average price of 1 million USD per unit, it would take only 3,2 billion USD to equip the entire US inventory of tactical aircraft with modern IRST systems. Allowing it to threaten the multi-billion AWACS or stealth aircraft programmes was simply unacceptable.*** For this reason, USAF is still acting as if IR sensors have not advanced past Vietnam-era sensors with their range, weather and targeting limitations. Same reason is also likely behind the decision to retire the IRST-equipped F-14 just before the F-22 started entering service (F-14s were retired in mid-2006, while the F-22 started entering service in 2007).

This might be changing as USAF agressors are starting to use IR sensors during Red Flag exercises. US’ Northrop Grumman has also signed a deal with SELEX which will bring Europe’s more advanced IRST technology to United States. This will help overcome US technological lag in field of IR systems when compared to Europe.

* Examples are assault rifles, carrier catapults, IR sensors, helmet mounted sights, HOBS IR missiles.

** US Navy was also the first service to deploy IR Sidewinder missile in 1956. US Air Force deployed a Falcon missile the same year, but it had both IR and RF variant, and unlike Sidewinder, it was primarily intended for bomber self-defense and not for usage on fighters. Even though it was later deployed on fighter aircraft as well, USN Sidewinder proved superior and became preeminent US IR air-to-air missile.

*** E-3 Sentry program cost is 26,73 billion USD, F-22 program cost is 79,48 billion USD and F-35 program cost is estimated at 323 billion USD, though it is likely to be higher.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Actually, you should be scared to know that most of what I posted would be a reality if it came to that.  And that is exactly the reason it won't happen.  It scares them as much as it scares me.  So both sides claim that they would win and no one dies today.


Another post that does nothing to support your argument. We'll file this one right with the "I know more so I'm right" type posts you've already made.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you should be scared to know that most of what I posted would be a reality if it came to that.  And that is exactly the reason it won't happen.  It scares them as much as it scares me.  So both sides claim that they would win and no one dies today.
> 
> 
> 
> Another post that does nothing to support your argument. We'll file this one right with the "I know more so I'm right" type posts you've already made.
Click to expand...


Just keep digging.  You always wanted an all expense paid vacation to China.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> I will as soon as I get back from my next sooper secrit mission spying on Russian Military.  But until then, you will just have to believe that the Russians/Soviets have had IRST for decades while the US has not.


Just as I thought, you clearly have no idea what the performance/specs on those two IR systems are when you claim the Russian one is better. You were just making stuff up and hoping I'd believe you.

Regarding your claim that Soviets have had IRST for decades while the US has not:




















Daryl Hunt said:


> And, yes, the agressor squadron of F-16s have it installed.


I told you this, so I'm not sure why you're now telling me this. Point was the F-22 has dominated against aggressor F-16s with IRST and Typhoons with IRST. The German pilots said the only chance they had was when an exercise was purposely arranged to commence WVR, otherwise they had no chance since they couldn't find the F-22s and would get shot down without even knowing they were being targeted. 

That is exactly waht would happen in this ridiculous scenario you have where there is some big plane trying to employ standoff jamming against other planes that it doesn't even know are in the air or where they are.... it would get shot down.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Just keep digging.  You always wanted an all expense paid vacation to China.


Nonsensical post that doesn't help your argument that barrage jamming can force a WVR fight.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep digging.  You always wanted an all expense paid vacation to China.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsensical post that doesn't help your argument that barrage jamming can force a WVR fight.
Click to expand...


I already posted the reason that IRST is being installed on the US Fighters.  And have shown that a Fighter above the Weather flying at near or above mach stands out like a sore thumb for about the same distance as it would for Radar.  The F-22 super cruising at Mach 1.8 at 50K is going to be extremely hot.  And the Russian IRST will be able to start picking them up at about 100 miles using their own IRST.  You seem to want to leave out the other variables and Monobreath your way around this.  My one post shows how this is done and why the US is working so hard to get their own IRST on as many fighters as possible.  Remember, the next generation of SU-35 will have radar as good as the US front line fighters.  And they can link up.  In fact, when they get the SU-35 using the Aesa Radar, the Russians are very good at linking and if you have X number of IRST birds that can link at different angles they can get a launch solution for a IR Missile and that missile will have the same range as it's Radar Counterpart.    All both sides need to do is to shorten the radars ability to lockon or jam X band completely to stop the incoming Amraam missiles from going active.  They just need to do this long enough to let it get close enough for IR to do it's job.  And believe me, the SU series will be tracking your missile through IR all the way which means, the dirty jammer can disengage and pull back out of harms way.   The SU series fighters all have the ability to block or spoof or...... in X band.  

Now, read my other post that explains it fully.  I didn't write the explanation.  Someone a lot smarter than either of us did though.

And stop digging.  Or are you craving Chop Suey so much you just can't help yourself.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Indofred said:


> So, in your opinion, it could be a serious mess.
> I'm going to have to read a lot more, but it looks dodgy on the surface.


*Those jerks want their planes to look like sports cars and cover a range of fighting abilitys that are impossible to build.  I know for a Fact that the USAF hated the A 10 it is a rough looking aircraft, but it shamed them because it is the best close support ac that they have had since WWII.  Its called the Thunderbolt and you never want to be on the working end of it.  They have updated and rebuilt it because it does the close support missions better than anything they have.  Wish we had them in Nam.  Its not fast, is not pretty, but it can hang around in the area and blast the hell out of anything you want.  It does not make a pass and fly 5 miles to turn around for another pass.  I you go to the military channel you can see how it works.   The ground pounders love the Hog.*


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Daryl Hunt said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep digging.  You always wanted an all expense paid vacation to China.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsensical post that doesn't help your argument that barrage jamming can force a WVR fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already posted the reason that IRST is being installed on the US Fighters.  And have shown that a Fighter above the Weather flying at near or above mach stands out like a sore thumb for about the same distance as it would for Radar.  The F-22 super cruising at Mach 1.8 at 50K is going to be extremely hot.  And the Russian IRST will be able to start picking them up at about 100 miles using their own IRST.  You seem to want to leave out the other variables and Monobreath your way around this.  My one post shows how this is done and why the US is working so hard to get their own IRST on as many fighters as possible.  Remember, the next generation of SU-35 will have radar as good as the US front line fighters.  And they can link up.  In fact, when they get the SU-35 using the Aesa Radar, the Russians are very good at linking and if you have X number of IRST birds that can link at different angles they can get a launch solution for a IR Missile and that missile will have the same range as it's Radar Counterpart.    All both sides need to do is to shorten the radars ability to lockon or jam X band completely to stop the incoming Amraam missiles from going active.  They just need to do this long enough to let it get close enough for IR to do it's job.  And believe me, the SU series will be tracking your missile through IR all the way which means, the dirty jammer can disengage and pull back out of harms way.   The SU series fighters all have the ability to block or spoof or...... in X band.
> 
> Now, read my other post that explains it fully.  I didn't write the explanation.  Someone a lot smarter than either of us did though.
> 
> And stop digging.  Or are you craving Chop Suey so much you just can't help yourself.
Click to expand...

*I bet a A10 can fly in at 50 foot hit the target and leave without getting hit.*


----------



## flacaltenn

Daryl Hunt said:


> But even so, at some point, the signals you are jamming will overpower the jamming signal the closer your birds get to the source. At that point, the 4th gens can be fired on first. And then the 5th gens can be fired on even closer. You may even have to use a fighter like the F-35 to do a short burst to blind a site that is stronger than the rest that has accomplished a lockon and maybe fire solution for a few minutes while it's being taken out. Not all sites will have the same range, power or capability. And neither will all Aircraft. But the EC-135 and EC-130 will be allowing the Fighters and Bombers to get a bit closer. Meanwhile, the Russians will be doing exactly the same thing with their IL birds. Then we are going to add in the Command Posts of both sides with extremely powerful radar that is just outside of launch range of the enemies attack missiles.



I'm sure hoping that this convo has stopped short of discussing classified tactical info.. That is all. I haven't read thru it all. But I'm seeing some pretty specific information being done in a public forum here.  

Just sayin'....


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> I already posted the reason that IRST is being installed on the US Fighters.  And have shown that a Fighter above the Weather flying at near or above mach stands out like a sore thumb for about the same distance as it would for Radar.  The F-22 super cruising at Mach 1.8 at 50K is going to be extremely hot.  And the Russian IRST will be able to start picking them up at about 100 miles using their own IRST.


You posted an amateur blog by someone who has never flown a fighter aircraft. That doesn't show anything, other than you desperately googled and decided it's a "good article" because you like it's conclusions.

Still waiting for your technical analysis to back up what you said about Russian IRST sensors being superior to those used by aggressor squadron, given you thought US hasn't had them for decades I'm even more skeptical that you know anything about them. Here I'll even give you a hand, this is the IRST system used on Flankers, specs given are for the latest one:










Hilariously, you're saying 100 miles but their own marketing material indicates a max detection range of 55 miles and that's from rear aspect of target under optimal atmospheric conditions. Frontal aspect max detection range is 21 miles, again under optimal conditions.




Daryl Hunt said:


> All both sides need to do is to shorten the radars ability to lockon or jam X band completely to stop the incoming Amraam missiles from going active.  They just need to do this long enough to let it get close enough for IR to do it's job.


Why and how would they be trying to close on F-22s that they don't even know are there? Answer = they wouldn't. They are flying blind, while broadcasting their position to F-22s from hundreds of miles away by emitting strong RF. Massive holes in your logic, and you just keep repeating them.




Daryl Hunt said:


> Now, read my other post that explains it fully.  I didn't write the explanation.  Someone a lot smarter than either of us did though.


That author is am amateur blogger, do you anything about him? Do you think he's a fighter pilot or has actually worked in development of these weapon systems?




Daryl Hunt said:


> And stop digging.  Or are you craving Chop Suey so much you just can't help yourself.


I have no idea what this means.


----------



## DrainBamage

Dan Stubbs said:


> *I bet a A10 can fly in at 50 foot hit the target and leave without getting hit.*


History disagrees, they stopped using them in contested airspace during the Gulf War after they kept getting shot down.




flacaltenn said:


> I'm sure hoping that this convo has stopped short of discussing classified tactical info.. That is all. I haven't read thru it all. But I'm seeing some pretty specific information being done in a public forum here.
> 
> Just sayin'....


Don't worry, there is nothing classified being presented here. The defense blogs that Darryl googles up when he can't figure things out aren't classified either.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

flacaltenn said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even so, at some point, the signals you are jamming will overpower the jamming signal the closer your birds get to the source. At that point, the 4th gens can be fired on first. And then the 5th gens can be fired on even closer. You may even have to use a fighter like the F-35 to do a short burst to blind a site that is stronger than the rest that has accomplished a lockon and maybe fire solution for a few minutes while it's being taken out. Not all sites will have the same range, power or capability. And neither will all Aircraft. But the EC-135 and EC-130 will be allowing the Fighters and Bombers to get a bit closer. Meanwhile, the Russians will be doing exactly the same thing with their IL birds. Then we are going to add in the Command Posts of both sides with extremely powerful radar that is just outside of launch range of the enemies attack missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure hoping that this convo has stopped short of discussing classified tactical info.. That is all. I haven't read thru it all. But I'm seeing some pretty specific information being done in a public forum here.
> 
> Just sayin'....
Click to expand...


None of this is classified.  Tactics and capabilities that are known on both sides are of public record.  But there is so much that we don't know and can only speculate.  I, for one, will not speculate.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted the reason that IRST is being installed on the US Fighters.  And have shown that a Fighter above the Weather flying at near or above mach stands out like a sore thumb for about the same distance as it would for Radar.  The F-22 super cruising at Mach 1.8 at 50K is going to be extremely hot.  And the Russian IRST will be able to start picking them up at about 100 miles using their own IRST.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted an amateur blog by someone who has never flown a fighter aircraft. That doesn't show anything, other than you desperately googled and decided it's a "good article" because you like it's conclusions.
> 
> Still waiting for your technical analysis to back up what you said about Russian IRST sensors being superior to those used by aggressor squadron, given you thought US hasn't had them for decades I'm even more skeptical that you know anything about them. Here I'll even give you a hand, this is the IRST system used on Flankers, specs given are for the latest one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilariously, you're saying 100 miles but their own marketing material indicates a max detection range of 55 miles and that's from rear aspect of target under optimal atmospheric conditions. Frontal aspect max detection range is 21 miles, again under optimal conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All both sides need to do is to shorten the radars ability to lockon or jam X band completely to stop the incoming Amraam missiles from going active.  They just need to do this long enough to let it get close enough for IR to do it's job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why and how would they be trying to close on F-22s that they don't even know are there? Answer = they wouldn't. They are flying blind, while broadcasting their position to F-22s from hundreds of miles away by emitting strong RF. Massive holes in your logic, and you just keep repeating them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, read my other post that explains it fully.  I didn't write the explanation.  Someone a lot smarter than either of us did though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That author is am amateur blogger, do you anything about him? Do you think he's a fighter pilot or has actually worked in development of these weapon systems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop digging.  Or are you craving Chop Suey so much you just can't help yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what this means.
Click to expand...



There you go again.  You are requiring the Russians to fly with the Radar On while the US flies with it's Radar off.  How Monobreath of you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted the reason that IRST is being installed on the US Fighters.  And have shown that a Fighter above the Weather flying at near or above mach stands out like a sore thumb for about the same distance as it would for Radar.  The F-22 super cruising at Mach 1.8 at 50K is going to be extremely hot.  And the Russian IRST will be able to start picking them up at about 100 miles using their own IRST.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted an amateur blog by someone who has never flown a fighter aircraft. That doesn't show anything, other than you desperately googled and decided it's a "good article" because you like it's conclusions.
> 
> Still waiting for your technical analysis to back up what you said about Russian IRST sensors being superior to those used by aggressor squadron, given you thought US hasn't had them for decades I'm even more skeptical that you know anything about them. Here I'll even give you a hand, this is the IRST system used on Flankers, specs given are for the latest one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilariously, you're saying 100 miles but their own marketing material indicates a max detection range of 55 miles and that's from rear aspect of target under optimal atmospheric conditions. Frontal aspect max detection range is 21 miles, again under optimal conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All both sides need to do is to shorten the radars ability to lockon or jam X band completely to stop the incoming Amraam missiles from going active.  They just need to do this long enough to let it get close enough for IR to do it's job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why and how would they be trying to close on F-22s that they don't even know are there? Answer = they wouldn't. They are flying blind, while broadcasting their position to F-22s from hundreds of miles away by emitting strong RF. Massive holes in your logic, and you just keep repeating them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, read my other post that explains it fully.  I didn't write the explanation.  Someone a lot smarter than either of us did though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That author is am amateur blogger, do you anything about him? Do you think he's a fighter pilot or has actually worked in development of these weapon systems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop digging.  Or are you craving Chop Suey so much you just can't help yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what this means.
Click to expand...


His information is sound.  The only way you can dispute it is to try and discredit the author.  That tells me that you are quite busy digging that hole.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> I, for one, will not speculate.


Said they guy who decided AMRAAMs in HOJ go ballistic if radiation source goes away, claims Russian IR sensors are better than has to admit he has no idea the technical specs of either system, thinks standoff jamming is suitable for moving airborne targets, thought US didn't use IR systems over previous decades, etc.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> There you go again.  You are requiring the Russians to fly with the Radar On while the US flies with it's Radar off.  How Monobreath of you.


Reading comprehension fail. This was my post:

_"Why and how would they be trying to close on F-22s that they don't even know are there? Answer = they wouldn't. *They are flying blind*, while broadcasting their position to F-22s from hundreds of miles away by emitting strong RF. Massive holes in your logic, and you just keep repeating them."_

I'm astounded that you are so out of your depth in this discussion that I need to explain what "flying blind" means, but I'll help you out... It means the Russians aren't using their radars. You said they wouldn't be using their radars and barrage jamming, so that's exactly the scenario I went with. It's pretty funny that you are flailing so badly here you are forced to (again) state the opposite of what I said to have something to argue against.

So which was it, did you not understand what "flying blind" means or where you again going strawman by purposely misstating my position?


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> His information is sound.  The only way you can dispute it is to try and discredit the author.  That tells me that you are quite busy digging that hole.


So you say, but you've shown over and over here that you really don't understand a lot of this (sometimes hilariouslso you desperately googling until you find something you like then declaring the amateur blogger an expert who is smarter than everyone doesn't really lend much weight.

You think his information is sound, but how do you know? Do you know anything about him his experience his credentials? Was he a fighter pilot?

You don't know, anymore than you know anything about the IR systems you were busted pretending to know a lot about. It's funny you keep referencing Manonthestreet but you're doing the exact same thing he does, googling for blogs that suit his worldview then posting it as fact without being able to back up or explain your position. In your case it's more often just lying about what I said then attacking that instead, which is itself a good indicator of where you stand here.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> His information is sound.  The only way you can dispute it is to try and discredit the author.  That tells me that you are quite busy digging that hole.
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but you've shown over and over here that you really don't understand a lot of this (sometimes hilariouslso you desperately googling until you find something you like then declaring the amateur blogger an expert who is smarter than everyone doesn't really lend much weight.
> 
> You think his information is sound, but how do you know? Do you know anything about him his experience his credentials? Was he a fighter pilot?
> 
> You don't know, anymore than you know anything about the IR systems you were busted pretending to know a lot about. It's funny you keep referencing Manonthestreet but you're doing the exact same thing he does, googling for blogs that suit his worldview then posting it as fact without being able to back up or explain your position. In your case it's more often just lying about what I said then attacking that instead, which is itself a good indicator of where you stand here.
Click to expand...


How do I know?  How does an Analyst know that hasn't piloted even one hour.  He talks to the ones that have.  He pays attention and learns in his professional capacity .  I am retired Air Force.  I don't need to be an expert in the field to have a rudimentary knowledge of how it works.  I have been involved in War Games.  I got roped in once as the Soviet Air Force for one.   It was their way of cheating having a lowly enlisted man in that position..  What they got was a Military Historian that understood both sides tactics.  I used a mix of Soviet and US Navy Tactics on them and they never saw it coming.  I used Numbers and Junk against Quality.  Using the Mig-25 to simulate high altitude bombers and sending waves of Mig-23s with Mig-27 racks (they didn't know the racks fit both birds), when they finally noticed the real threats, they disengaged from the Mig-25s and the Mig-25s went to long range fighter mode.  These were F-15 Pilots with hitches in their gitalongs.  I used their own egos against them.  In 6 minutes real time, almost all German bases with fighters were destroyed.  Only the In the end, it was the SU-7 against the A-10.  And I already know how to use an A-7 to defeat an A-10 almost 100% of the time and the SU-7 was very close to the A-7 in performance.  It wasn't a win, just a delaying action.  Since Britain could not be taken without going full on Nukes, it could be used to do an Allied Resupply and buildup.  This action was only good for no more than 3 days.  At that point, both side start talking peace talks and who gets what territory.  The next year, no enlisted people were used and our Wing King had quite a feather in his cap with his Joke on them.  The morons used a game that the two enlisted people were both experts at and the Wing King knew it.  So both sides cheated.  And if you think that things are going to be exactly the way you perceive them to be, don't.  That is exactly the same mistake that the Japanese War Game played just before they entered into the Battle of Midway.  The Japanese cheated in their games and had their butts handed to them soundly.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> How do I know?


Exactly. You have no idea what his qualifications are but after some desperate googling you present this amateur blogger as some expert.

I can find a different blogger with a different opinion to say anything I want, but I don't need to because I've been able to systematically and methodically pick apart every attempt you've made to support your argument that barrage jamming will force a WVR fight. You failed to explain how it could be done, you repeatedly demonstrated you didn't understand basic technical aspects of what's in play, you were caught manufacturing information multiple times, you leaned on appeal to authority and strawman fallacies more times than I can count, and now you've become a Google warrior searching for blog posts that suit your argument.

Do you realize David Axe from War is Boring is the exact idiot who wrote that article a few years back concluding claiming the F-35 can't even beat the F-16 it is replacing. His conclusion was "_within a few decades, American and allied aviators will fly into battle in an inferior fighter — one that could get them killed … and cost the United States control of the air._" Of course his article was soundly debunked since it was an early model F-35 that was testing software limitations on control surfaces, various actual pilots weighed in that F-35 was far better than Axe thought, and it went on to post devastating kill ratios in exercises against F-15s and F-16s.

That is who you've hitched your wagon to. Congrats.


----------



## DrainBamage

The death spiral of the F-35 program continues....

Belgium Picks the F-35: President Macron Responds - Second Line of Defense

*Belgium Picks the F-35*

“We have landed! This government is investing heavily in defense. With the purchase of F-35A fighter planes ... we ensure your safety and that of our military,” Belgian Defence Minister Steven Vandeput said on Twitter during the news conference. “The offer from the Americans was *the best in all our seven evaluation criteria,*” he later told reporters. The jets, which can avoid detection and tracking by enemy radars or heat sensors, aim to offer NATO allies technological superiority with additional capabilities such as the ability to disrupt enemy communications networks and navigation signals. The pick makes Belgium the 12th country to choose the F-35, which comes in three variants - the F-35A conventional take-off and landing model, the F-35B, a short take-off or vertical landing version, and the F-35C, used aboard aircraft carriers. Belgium has chosen the conventional version of the plane, with the first deliveries scheduled for 2023.


Belgium is buying 34 F-35As. Germany's upcoming decisions on replacement of Tornado will be interesting since a lot more politics will be at play given they are founding partners in Eurofighter Typhoon, which was just beaten by F-35 in Belgium.

Finland is also currently taking bids for 64 fighters to replace it's aging F-18s, and I've money on F-35 there too for same reason F-18 was well suited... it's designed and qualified for all-weather rough conditions of at-sea deployment on aircraft carriers so makes sense for Finland's semi-arctic environments.


----------



## WheelieAddict

The F-35 has enough corporate welfare to be a success.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You have no idea what his qualifications are but after some desperate googling you present this amateur blogger as some expert.
> 
> I can find a different blogger with a different opinion to say anything I want, but I don't need to because I've been able to systematically and methodically pick apart every attempt you've made to support your argument that barrage jamming will force a WVR fight. You failed to explain how it could be done, you repeatedly demonstrated you didn't understand basic technical aspects of what's in play, you were caught manufacturing information multiple times, you leaned on appeal to authority and strawman fallacies more times than I can count, and now you've become a Google warrior searching for blog posts that suit your argument.
> 
> Do you realize David Axe from War is Boring is the exact idiot who wrote that article a few years back concluding claiming the F-35 can't even beat the F-16 it is replacing. His conclusion was "_within a few decades, American and allied aviators will fly into battle in an inferior fighter — one that could get them killed … and cost the United States control of the air._" Of course his article was soundly debunked since it was an early model F-35 that was testing software limitations on control surfaces, various actual pilots weighed in that F-35 was far better than Axe thought, and it went on to post devastating kill ratios in exercises against F-15s and F-16s.
> 
> That is who you've hitched your wagon to. Congrats.
Click to expand...


I see your standard.  As long as I 100% agree with you I am your hero and an expert.  But let me disagree with you and I become a crank that knows nothing.   I think you have ended this with your hypocrisy.  Have a nice day.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> I see your standard.  As long as I 100% agree with you I am your hero and an expert.  But let me disagree with you and I become a crank that knows nothing.


Hah my how seamlessly you slid from the "I know more because I know more, go eat chop suey" bully mode into melodramatic victim.

My standard is simple, present your case with facts and back it up by responding to the argument being made by others. I have no time for people making things up, appealing to authority in lieu of being able to state your case, and the repeated decrying straw man arguments that I never made.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your standard.  As long as I 100% agree with you I am your hero and an expert.  But let me disagree with you and I become a crank that knows nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah my how seamlessly you slid from the "I know more because I know more, go eat chop suey" bully mode into melodramatic victim.
> 
> My standard is simple, present your case with facts and back it up by responding to the argument being made by others. I have no time for people making things up, appealing to authority in lieu of being able to state your case, and the repeated decrying straw man arguments that I never made.
Click to expand...


You have already been dismissed.  Do you know what that means Pseudo Airman?  Many of the rest of know.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> You have already been dismissed.  Do you know what that means Pseudo Airman?  Many of the rest of know.


... and we're done with the victim and back to Mr. Authority. 

I guess when you get proven incapable of supporting the BS you were spewing, and exposed repeatedly for misunderstanding relatively basic aspects of this discussion all you can do is imagine this will convince someone.


----------



## DrainBamage

Dan Stubbs said:


> *I bet a A10 can fly in at 50 foot hit the target and leave without getting hit.*


To take this a bit farther, here was their experience with them in contested airspace in Iraq:


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I bet a A10 can fly in at 50 foot hit the target and leave without getting hit.*
> 
> 
> 
> To take this a bit farther, here was their experience with them in contested airspace in Iraq:
Click to expand...


The same thing happened at the Airport where the last standing of the Revolutionary Guard was.  The Army sent in their AH-64 to take care of it.  They lost one with the crew captured, and not one single returning Apache was deemed serviceable due to battle damage when they returned.  The Guard was still there.  They sent in AF F-16s that were very effective and it was prepared for the Army and Marine ground forces to take the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard Forces out.  It was another case of using the wrong tool for the wrong job.

But the A-10 has a lower cost of operation than the F-16.  Although it has a shorter range, inside of that range, it is more deadly if the air threats are not there.  That means that if it's ISIS or Taliban the A-10 should be the chosen first weapon.  The same can be said for the AC-130.  In fact, anything you say about one can be said about the other.  While the AC-130 has a much higher operating cost per flight, it does much more damage per flying hour or flight.  But the A-10 can be resortied 3 times in one day with 3 short one or two hour flights to hot spots to support troops in serious trouble.  There IS a mind game played when an A-10 is operating in an area.  he isn't there long and he isn't loitering.  He is there firing his weapons and both sides mentally feel his presence.  Both sides put their heads down.  One side is fearful and the other side is jubilant.  Even if it were possible, no overrun will happen at that point.  And there will probably be a withdrawal of the enemies forces at the very least.  This really can't be done by any other type of aircraft in the US inventory at this time until we get the next gen slow moving attack birds in the air and into service.  The A-10 is still needed.  And it's paid for so why not use it.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.
> 
> From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
> Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
> *The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....
> 
> ...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled
Click to expand...

The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.
> 
> From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
> Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
> *The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....
> 
> ...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
> Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's
Click to expand...


Your own cite shows that they not are buying any new F-15s.  The are upgrading what they have.  Funny, but they are upgrading really old F-15As but with low flight hours.  They are upgrading them to the either the new E or the new X models.  That makes them extremely dangerous and capable of taking on anything the Russians or the Chinese have.  And they are buying more F-35As.  This makes them able to take on Iran in a cakewalk.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.
> 
> From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
> Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
> *The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....
> 
> ...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
> Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own cite shows that they not are buying any new F-15s.  The are upgrading what they have.  Funny, but they are upgrading really old F-15As but with low flight hours.  They are upgrading them to the either the new E or the new X models.  That makes them extremely dangerous and capable of taking on anything the Russians or the Chinese have.  And they are buying more F-35As.  This makes them able to take on Iran in a cakewalk.
Click to expand...

The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday.
OMG quit being so stupid.....see you've been making some of my arguments...ooops getting old cant remember what ya posted


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things I didnt say to try to make yourself look smart
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......nobody wants to address fact they aren't ordering the last batch as planned.....First nation to use it in "combat" or operationally and this would seem to point to them being underwhelmed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.
> 
> From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
> Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
> *The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....
> 
> ...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too expesive to risk in ground support where stealth matters not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
> Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own cite shows that they not are buying any new F-15s.  The are upgrading what they have.  Funny, but they are upgrading really old F-15As but with low flight hours.  They are upgrading them to the either the new E or the new X models.  That makes them extremely dangerous and capable of taking on anything the Russians or the Chinese have.  And they are buying more F-35As.  This makes them able to take on Iran in a cakewalk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday.
> OMG quit being so stupid.....see you've been making some of my arguments...ooops getting old cant remember what ya posted
Click to expand...


Acquired means purchased.  They aren't purchasing, they are upgrading what they already have.  Your article can't quite makes it mind up what the real thing is.  Says loads about it's authenticity.  

But they are also buying the Saudi version at a whopping 110 mil a copy.  It's a good mix using both the F-15SA along with the F-35A.  The F-35 spots and the F-15 kills.  Same goes for ground attack.  The F-35 clears a corridor and the F-15 kills.  

I may be old but I'm still smarter than you are.  Then again, a rock sinking in the pond is smarter than you are.

I have no idea why you are down on the F-35 so bad.  It's passed every test it's ever been given hands down.  With the coming S-300 and 400 systems, the F-35 is more important in Israels stable than ever before.  The Iranians want to put those systems in Syria right under where the F-35 has to refuel.  I guess the Iranians are getting sick and tired of the F-35 overflights over Iran.  Not to worry, when they start trying to setup those sites, the F-35, F-15 and the F-16 has nothing better to do than turn it all into a junk heap.  And there isn't a thing Iran can do about it.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
> Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's


Hah that's a cute way to twist facts. If they buy F-15s, it's what they wanted. If they buy F-35s, they were railroaded. Here's what the link you have says:

"In addition to *continuing purchasing F-35 multirole stealth fighters*, IAF decides to upgrade its dependable F-15 fleet with improved model capable of carrying 13 tons of explosives with advanced avionics"

"Once the third squadron is complete, approximately in 10 years time, the IAF *will have at least 75 F-35 stealth aircraft* at its disposal."



So it says they will continue procuring F-35s and will have 75 within 10 years. Does 75 aircraft indicate they chose something else instead? Nope. Here is an article about Israel F-35 procurement *from 2012*, at Exclusive: U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s | Reuters

"The deal, to be finalized in coming weeks, marks a big step forward for Israel’s $2.75 billion agreement to buy 19 F-35 jets, which was signed in October 2010 and *includes options for up to 75 of the radar-evading fighters*."


Here is *from 2016*, at Liberman unveils Israel’s future stealth fighter: The F-35

"Israel has purchased 33 of these fighter jets so far, but the Israeli Air Force has expressed interest in more than twice that. IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot has already approved the purchase of 17 more planes for a total of 50, *but Kelman and the IAF want to bring that number up to 75 in the years to come.*"

So you're posting something that says they will continue buying F-35s until they have 75, which is what the original number mentioned in 2012 (when they first finalized their purchase plants) and 2016 when they received their first fighter. What kind of moron looks at an article saying they are buying F-15s in addition to the 75 F-35s, and concudes 75 is less than the orignal 75?

F-15I offers capabilities they need because of a distinct mission requirement that they can carry a very heavy payload to Iran. Your logic is like thinking because USAF bought F-111s they have decided they don't like their F-4s.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> I have no idea why you are down on the F-35 so bad.  It's passed every test it's ever been given hands down.


He's anti-35 because he spent so much time ranting in here about how much of a failure it would be before it started flying and proved him wrong. His pride won't let him admit he was wrong so he just keeps plugging away even though most of the plane's detractors including many he quoted from years ago in this thread have changed their tune about F-35.

He's at the point where instead of trying to look at facts objectively to reach a conclusion, he's trying to shape/spin reality so it matches the conclusion he had.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
> Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's
> 
> 
> 
> Hah that's a cute way to twist facts. If they buy F-15s, it's what they wanted. If they buy F-35s, they were railroaded. Here's what the link you have says:
> 
> "In addition to *continuing purchasing F-35 multirole stealth fighters*, IAF decides to upgrade its dependable F-15 fleet with improved model capable of carrying 13 tons of explosives with advanced avionics"
> 
> "Once the third squadron is complete, approximately in 10 years time, the IAF *will have at least 75 F-35 stealth aircraft* at its disposal."
> 
> 
> 
> So it says they will continue procuring F-35s and will have 75 within 10 years. Does 75 aircraft indicate they chose something else instead? Nope. Here is an article about Israel F-35 procurement *from 2012*, at Exclusive: U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s | Reuters
> 
> "The deal, to be finalized in coming weeks, marks a big step forward for Israel’s $2.75 billion agreement to buy 19 F-35 jets, which was signed in October 2010 and *includes options for up to 75 of the radar-evading fighters*."
> 
> 
> Here is *from 2016*, at Liberman unveils Israel’s future stealth fighter: The F-35
> 
> "Israel has purchased 33 of these fighter jets so far, but the Israeli Air Force has expressed interest in more than twice that. IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot has already approved the purchase of 17 more planes for a total of 50, *but Kelman and the IAF want to bring that number up to 75 in the years to come.*"
> 
> So you're posting something that says they will continue buying F-35s until they have 75, which is what the original number mentioned in 2012 (when they first finalized their purchase plants) and 2016 when they received their first fighter. What kind of moron looks at an article saying they are buying F-15s in addition to the 75 F-35s, and concudes 75 is less than the orignal 75?
> 
> F-15I offers capabilities they need because of a distinct mission requirement that they can carry a very heavy payload to Iran. Your logic is like thinking because USAF bought F-111s they have decided they don't like their F-4s.
Click to expand...


Since the new generation of the F-15 is based on the E model, that model also makes one hell off a long range bomber.  It flies out of England and can hit targets in Russia with Nukes and make it home, that is, if there is a home to come back to.  If there isn't, they can meet up with a Tanker in the Atlantic and make it back to Newfoundland.  The F-15E has the range to not need inflight refueling to hit Iran and then return.

Until the Israelis get those stealth Conformal Tanks for the F-35, it will be required to refuel over Syria both ways.  Are they doing that now?  There has been come complaints come of Iran complaining of overflights of F-35s.  Now, I don't know if it really was a F-35.  It could have been a F-15 with some neat pod toys.  But overflights are probably happening.  This is why the Iranians announced they are moving SA missiles into Syria.  Yes, right under where the F-35 would be refueling.  Of course, Israel has announced they will make them into slag heaps.  No Iranian SA missiles sites or mobile sites have been put into that part of Syria.


----------



## DrainBamage

To take MoronOnTheSteet's silliness in better perspective, this is was released a few days after his source:

IDF: No decision on advanced F-15s as yet | Jane's 360


> *Israel has not made a final decision on acquiring a more advanced version of the Boeing F-15 multirole fighter*, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) told _Jane's_ . "All possibilities regarding this issue are under IDF, IAF [Israeli Air Force], and the defence establishment's examination, and their position has yet to be decided," the IDF said in a statement on 20 November.
> 
> The Ynet news website reported on 19 November that there had been an official announcement that the IAF would acquire a more advanced version of the fighter called the F-15IA in addition to more Lockheed Martin F-35s, 50 of which have already been ordered. It indicated that the F-15IA is the Israeli designation for the F-15 Advanced Eagle. A Saudi version called the F-15SA is already in production and Qatar has ordered one called the F-15QA, the main difference between the two being the Qataris have opted for the Large Area Display cockpit made by the Israeli company Elbit. Ynet said there was initially US opposition to Israel's acquisition of the F-15IA if it resulted in a reduction of Israel's F-35 order. It cited a document approved by Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman shortly before he resigned on 14 November as saying that the IAF still intends to field three F-35 squadrons, each with 25 aircraft.


So not only did he post something that isn't necessarily true, there is an additional confirmation that IAF intends to field 75 F-35s just like they said they've been planning to as far back as 2012.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> To take MoronOnTheSteet's silliness in better perspective, this is was released a few days after his source:
> 
> IDF: No decision on advanced F-15s as yet | Jane's 360
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel has not made a final decision on acquiring a more advanced version of the Boeing F-15 multirole fighter*, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) told _Jane's_ . "All possibilities regarding this issue are under IDF, IAF [Israeli Air Force], and the defence establishment's examination, and their position has yet to be decided," the IDF said in a statement on 20 November.
> 
> The Ynet news website reported on 19 November that there had been an official announcement that the IAF would acquire a more advanced version of the fighter called the F-15IA in addition to more Lockheed Martin F-35s, 50 of which have already been ordered. It indicated that the F-15IA is the Israeli designation for the F-15 Advanced Eagle. A Saudi version called the F-15SA is already in production and Qatar has ordered one called the F-15QA, the main difference between the two being the Qataris have opted for the Large Area Display cockpit made by the Israeli company Elbit. Ynet said there was initially US opposition to Israel's acquisition of the F-15IA if it resulted in a reduction of Israel's F-35 order. It cited a document approved by Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman shortly before he resigned on 14 November as saying that the IAF still intends to field three F-35 squadrons, each with 25 aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> So not only did he post something that isn't necessarily true, there is an additional confirmation that IAF intends to field 75 F-35s just like they said they've been planning to as far back as 2012.
Click to expand...


They still have the option to upgrade their older F-15C models they aquired in 1989.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> worthless F-35 sqdn



_"Former Israel Air Force chief Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amir Eshel has called the F-35 “game changing,” saying that Israel gathered new intelligence during a single flight by the F-35 early 2017 that other reconnaissance and intelligence gathering systems would take weeks to gather."_

Wow, you don't know the definition of the word "worthless" do you?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on dude, nobody needs to make any effort to look smart when responding to "All combat loaded aircraft fly at their listed max speed" guy who brags he posts the most links.
> 
> Okay let's look at your conclusion that their combat experience with F-35 was the reason they are buying more F-15s.
> 
> From May 17: Israel to link fleet upgrade with follow-on F-15I buy
> Israel has proposed a deal to purchase additional Boeing F-15s, in a package that would also include upgrading the Israeli air force's existing I-model examples of the strike aircraft. Worth almost $4 billion, the potential purchase would include 25 twin-engined F-15Is in an advanced configuration. The new version's airframe would have an extended lifespan and enhanced features including a large-area cockpit display. The purchase of additional F-15s has recently gained priority for the Israeli air force's high command over ordering aircraft for a third squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35Is. *The rationale for this decision is that while the F-35's stealth features are essential at the start of a conflict, the type will need be flown during later combat sorties in conjunction with assets capable of carrying a heavier weapons load.*
> 
> 
> 
> They are going with a F-35/F-15 mix because they need a platform that can haul 5,000lb class weapons really far, hello Iran. If this news was coming out in May 17 they were making the analysis and proposal for F-15s well before F-35 was used in combat, so you have a serious logic fail.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-israelis-want-larger-more-modern-f-15-fleet
> *The decision to embark on this upgrade program was made two years ago, in spite of the nation’s planned purchase of the Lockheed Martin F-35*. An Israeli source says the air force is looking as far ahead as 40 years. “The F-15 has a lot of advantages. It can be equipped with Israeli-developed systems, an upgrade that can be performed on the F-35 to a clear limit,” says the source. Israel regards its F-15 fleet to be the backbone of its attacking capability. As such, it is considering the purchase of additional F-15s....
> 
> ...The clear tendency in the Israeli Air Force is to first purchase additional new F-15s and only then consider whether to fulfill the original plan of 75 F-35s. In November 2016, the Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of another 17 Lockheed Martin F-35s, for a total 50 of the stealth fighters. Israeli sources say talks continue with the U.S. Defense Department about the potential purchase of 20-25 advanced F-15s..
> 
> 
> Yet another logic fail, an F-35A costs significantly less than a brand new F-15I.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
> Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own cite shows that they not are buying any new F-15s.  The are upgrading what they have.  Funny, but they are upgrading really old F-15As but with low flight hours.  They are upgrading them to the either the new E or the new X models.  That makes them extremely dangerous and capable of taking on anything the Russians or the Chinese have.  And they are buying more F-35As.  This makes them able to take on Iran in a cakewalk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday.
> OMG quit being so stupid.....see you've been making some of my arguments...ooops getting old cant remember what ya posted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquired means purchased.  They aren't purchasing, they are upgrading what they already have.  Your article can't quite makes it mind up what the real thing is.  Says loads about it's authenticity.
> 
> But they are also buying the Saudi version at a whopping 110 mil a copy.  It's a good mix using both the F-15SA along with the F-35A.  The F-35 spots and the F-15 kills.  Same goes for ground attack.  The F-35 clears a corridor and the F-15 kills.
> 
> I may be old but I'm still smarter than you are.  Then again, a rock sinking in the pond is smarter than you are.
> 
> I have no idea why you are down on the F-35 so bad.  It's passed every test it's ever been given hands down.  With the coming S-300 and 400 systems, the F-35 is more important in Israels stable than ever before.  The Iranians want to put those systems in Syria right under where the F-35 has to refuel.  I guess the Iranians are getting sick and tired of the F-35 overflights over Iran.  Not to worry, when they start trying to setup those sites, the F-35, F-15 and the F-16 has nothing better to do than turn it all into a junk heap.  And there isn't a thing Iran can do about it.
Click to expand...

sticking wit that moronic take eh....doesn't make any sense to sink that much money into old airframes....take an entire rebuild......Slow and low still equals dead....but hey its invisible righiiigghttt…..keep believing the pr til combat shows otherwise. Its a niche plane just like F-117 was,,,,,,some are nice...too many and you've degraded your defense


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said by time those F-15 are delivered it will be yrs down the road...….virtual cancellation without saying cancelled
> 
> 
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA
> Unfortunately they were railroaded into buying 1 more worthless F-35 sqdn to get the F-15's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own cite shows that they not are buying any new F-15s.  The are upgrading what they have.  Funny, but they are upgrading really old F-15As but with low flight hours.  They are upgrading them to the either the new E or the new X models.  That makes them extremely dangerous and capable of taking on anything the Russians or the Chinese have.  And they are buying more F-35As.  This makes them able to take on Iran in a cakewalk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday.
> OMG quit being so stupid.....see you've been making some of my arguments...ooops getting old cant remember what ya posted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquired means purchased.  They aren't purchasing, they are upgrading what they already have.  Your article can't quite makes it mind up what the real thing is.  Says loads about it's authenticity.
> 
> But they are also buying the Saudi version at a whopping 110 mil a copy.  It's a good mix using both the F-15SA along with the F-35A.  The F-35 spots and the F-15 kills.  Same goes for ground attack.  The F-35 clears a corridor and the F-15 kills.
> 
> I may be old but I'm still smarter than you are.  Then again, a rock sinking in the pond is smarter than you are.
> 
> I have no idea why you are down on the F-35 so bad.  It's passed every test it's ever been given hands down.  With the coming S-300 and 400 systems, the F-35 is more important in Israels stable than ever before.  The Iranians want to put those systems in Syria right under where the F-35 has to refuel.  I guess the Iranians are getting sick and tired of the F-35 overflights over Iran.  Not to worry, when they start trying to setup those sites, the F-35, F-15 and the F-16 has nothing better to do than turn it all into a junk heap.  And there isn't a thing Iran can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sticking wit that moronic take eh....doesn't make any sense to sink that much money into old airframes....take an entire rebuild......Slow and low still equals dead....but hey its invisible righiiigghttt…..keep believing the pr til combat shows otherwise. Its a niche plane just like F-117 was,,,,,,some are nice...too many and you've degraded your defense
Click to expand...


The F-35A does more than Mach 1.6 in full combat trim. Probably closer to Mach 1.8.  A full combat loaded F-15 can only do Mach 1.8.  A fully loaded F-16 is lucky to make Mach 1.3.  A fully loaded SU-30 (6 air to air missiles) will be lucky to do Mach 1.5.  Yes, the F-35A can't go any faster even without weapons but it's as fast as the fastest Gen 4.  Only the F-22 is faster.  If you want to go faster than a F-35A, you are going to have to jettison your weapons and become a fleeing target.  In the end, the F-35A ends up being one of the fastest fighters made in combat trim.  Now the bad news, if you try and fight it out with the F-35A and try to do it without your external fuel tanks, you are going to go bingo long before the F-35A does without external fuel tanks.  

If you keep your external fuel tanks, your G rating will be less than 9 Gees with less than 7 gs sustainable.  Meanwhile, the F-35A will be able to do 9+ g initially with at least a 7.5 sustainable turn rate.  You are going to have to drop those fuel tanks and only have a few precious minutes of afterburner power on tap before you have to drop your load and run for it.

The deciding factor of ANY Fighter really isn't the AC itself, it's the Pilot.  If you exceed those G factors, you can turn your pilot into jelly pretty quick.  Not jelly but above 9.5 Gees he will be going into a red out condition.  Above a 10 g and he is going into a blackout condition (depending on the pilots conditioning).  If you try and do more than a sustained 7.5, the Pilot is going to tire quickly and not be able to control the Aircraft.  The F-35A reaches those pilot limits without exceeding them.  And he does it with his full fuel load and weapons load.  Except for the F-22, all the others have to back off those limits not due to the pilots capability but due to the air frame capability.  

It's all about Physics.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Too bad f35 carries what 1/4 of the missles and less of the bombs...….and short legged as hell


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Too bad f35 carries what 1/4 of the missles and less of the bombs...….and short legged as hell



Range without external fuel with full load    1379 miles
F-16 without external fuel  with limited load       1000 miles
F-18 without external fuel with limited load    800 miles
SU-30 without external Fuel with limited load   1200 miles
You keep using clean range (no missiles on board against the F-35A that has the same range both loaded and clean)  Of course, clean, the Gen 4 fighters will have more range but they can't fight with that long range or will have to carry external fuel tanks to get a longer range.  Even with 3 external fuel tanks and a missile load, the F-16 will barely be able to reach mach 1.  Yes, it will be able to get about 1800 miles like that but until it drops those tanks, it's a sitting duck and shows up on radar like a beacon in the night.  Same goes for the other Gen 4 fighters.  The ONLY two Gen 4 fighters that will fair better will be the F-15 and the SU-35.  The original specs have changed since the engines have been upgraded on the F-35.  

The F-16, F-18, Mig-29 all carry 6 AA missiles.  The F-35A carries 4.  But in the end, there will be thousands of the F-35As to contend with making it the most numerous fighter in the world.  If you have 4 and the other guy has 6 but you have 4 times as many in the air, it doesn't really matter to you that much.  Your missiles outnumber his by at least 5 times.  The USAF, alone, has hundreds already and will have thousands by 2025.  USAF gets not only quality but quantity as well.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> sticking wit that moronic take eh....doesn't make any sense to sink that much money into old airframes....take an entire rebuild......


Jesus Christ you're naive, F-15Es are still rolling off the production line and they are always making proposals for new versions F-15SE, F-15X, etc.



Manonthestreet said:


> Slow and low still equals dead....but hey its invisible righiiigghttt…..keep believing the pr til combat shows otherwise. Its a niche plane just like F-117 was,,,,,,some are nice...too many and you've degraded your defense


We all know you turn tail and run from the thread whenever this is brought up, but let's go through the motions of exposing how shallow MoronOnTheStreet's understanding of air combat is.

1. You are comparing the specs on an F-35 with combat load to other aircraft flying clean, which is stupid. F-35 clean flies at mach 1.6, and an F-35 with with air-to-air combat load also flies at mach 1.6 because it has no kinematic penalty. An F-35 in combat configuration can top out much faster than an F-16 or F-18 in a combat configuration since they will have drop tanks and external missiles, and is likely as fast as an SU-35 carrying six big Russian missiles.

2. There is a lot of data available on air to air kills in the modern era, and the overwhelming majority have happened at transonic speeds and mid altitude. Reason = fighter don't go dashing around at full afterburner or at altitudes where they have a turn radius the size of Texas. If two planes engage they will very likey being flying at about 600 mph and 35k feet. Only in MoronOnTheSteet's pea brain does air combat consist of aircraft flying at mach 2 over 70k feet, reality is quite different.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> sticking wit that moronic take eh....doesn't make any sense to sink that much money into old airframes....take an entire rebuild......
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ you're naive, F-15Es are still rolling off the production line and they are always making proposals for new versions F-15SE, F-15X, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow and low still equals dead....but hey its invisible righiiigghttt…..keep believing the pr til combat shows otherwise. Its a niche plane just like F-117 was,,,,,,some are nice...too many and you've degraded your defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know you turn tail and run from the thread whenever this is brought up, but let's go through the motions of exposing how shallow MoronOnTheStreet's understanding of air combat is.
> 
> 1. You are comparing the specs on an F-35 with combat load to other aircraft flying clean, which is stupid. F-35 clean flies at mach 1.6, and an F-35 with with air-to-air combat load also flies at mach 1.6 because it has no kinematic penalty. An F-35 in combat configuration can top out much faster than an F-16 or F-18 in a combat configuration since they will have drop tanks and external missiles, and is likely as fast as an SU-35 carrying six big Russian missiles.
> 
> 2. There is a lot of data available on air to air kills in the modern era, and the overwhelming majority have happened at transonic speeds and mid altitude. Reason = fighter don't go dashing around at full afterburner or at altitudes where they have a turn radius the size of Texas. If two planes engage they will very likey being flying at about 600 mph and 35k feet. Only in MoronOnTheSteet's pea brain does air combat consist of aircraft flying at mach 2 over 70k feet, reality is quite different.
Click to expand...


Most fighter want the speeds down around 450mph where they can grab air hard to turn and burn.  The F-15 forces the fight to the 600mph where it has the advantage.  If you want to fight him, you will have to fight his fight.  If you don't want to cooperate, he just hits the burners and leaves and there is nothing you can do about it.  One second he is there and the next he's gone 10 miles away and the closure starts all over again.  He's already dropped his tanks so his speed is going to be well over Mach 2, probably over mach 2.4 still carrying 4 missiles.  The F-15 is the third fastest air breathing piloted aircraft in the world, third only to the Mig-25 and the Mig-31.  

The F-35A will also want to fight at 600mph but he will start the fight before closure.  In fact, you may not even  be aware of him until his door comes open to launch if even then.  And then, that will be only for about a second.  I don't know about you but that would make me extremely nervous in an opposing fighter.  And then to dog fight him, having to drop my drop tanks which means I may not have enough fuel to get home even if I do win the the engagement.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Too bad f35 carries what 1/4 of the missles and less of the bombs...….and short legged as hell


F-35 currently carries 4 AAMs internally, and will carry 6 AAMs internally in the block 4 update. Can you identify which fighter carries 24 AAMs? Take a look at pictures of Flankers flying in Syria, they carry 4-6 AAMs.

Are you lying to yourself, attempting to lie to us, or don't know basic arithmetic?


----------



## DrainBamage

Japan, which has already gotten their hands on F-35s, is doubling down again. They've decided to also buy F-35Bs for their helicopter carriers, in addition to the A models they are already buying for the Japan Air Defense Force.

Japan Set to Procure F-35B STOVL Aircraft for JMSDF Izumo-class 'helicopter destroyer'


> The Japanese government has decided to procure the F35B short take-off and vertical-landing (STOVL) stealth fighter aircraft as part of the new defense plan to be outlined next month. This information was reported by Japanese media Nippon News Network (NNN). The carrier-borne aircraft would be procured to be deployed from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force(JMSDF) two Izumo-class helicopter destroyers, JS Izumo and JS Kaga. The two vessels, the largest in the JMSDF fleet with a displacement of 27,000 tons (full load) and a length of 248 meters would be modified in order to accommodate the aircraft.




Could have sworn MoronOnTheStreet told us this was failing program and once people got their hands on the plane they'd realize what a lemon they have.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Tokyo looks to American and indigenous alternatives as a result of the joint strike fighter’s shortcomings.
> Why the F-35 Isn’t Good Enough for Japan





Manonthestreet said:


> why do you think there is such a rush for high end fighters by US, Japan and others lately.....methinks the truth is ugly in regard to the slowboat you try so hard to sell


As usual just about everything you say in this thread turns out to be false, nothing more than a spin your own imagination put on it.

Japan to order 100 more F-35 fighters from US
Nov 27 TOKYO -- *Japan is preparing to order another 100 F-35 stealth fighter jets* from the U.S. to replace some of its aging F-15s, according to sources. The plan can be considered a response to China's military buildup, as well as a nod to U.S. President Donald Trump's call for Tokyo to buy more American defense equipment. Japan already intended to procure 42 of the new fighters. A single F-35 costs more than 10 billion yen ($88.1 million), meaning the additional order would exceed 1 trillion yen. Japan's government plans to approve the purchase when it adopts new National Defense Program Guidelines at a cabinet meeting in mid-December. It will also include the F-35 order in its medium-term defense program, which covers fiscal 2019 to fiscal 2023. The government wants to obtain 42 F-35s as successors to its F-4s by fiscal 2024. *The 42 fighters Japan originally planned to buy are all F-35As, a conventional takeoff and landing variant. The additional 100 planes would include both the F-35A and F-35B*, which is capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings.

Japan knows as well as anyone how an F-35 performs because they deployed their first one almost a year ago, and they're about to order 100 more. You are made to look the fool yet again.


----------



## Karl Rand

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

Maybe we’ll never know until they unleash them against the Russians over Ukraine.
That is if the love affair between Putin and Trump allows.
US’s priciest F-35 stealth fighter crashes


----------



## DrainBamage

I don't subscribe to the theory that you'll never know how good something is until it's used in combat.

Take F-22, for example. It's universally considered the best air superiority fighter on the planet and has held that distinction since it first took to the skies, yet it has zero air combat experience. However we know how it flies, we can test it's stealth against all kinds of sensors, we can see how it performs in exercises against other aircraft, I don't think anyone thinks F-22 isn't a known factor in terms of combat capabilities.


----------



## Karl Rand

DrainBamage said:


> I don't subscribe to the theory that you'll never know how good something is until it's used in combat.
> 
> Take F-22, for example. It's universally considered the best air superiority fighter on the planet and has held that distinction since it first took to the skies, yet it has zero air combat experience. However we know how it flies, we can test it's stealth against all kinds of sensors, we can see how it performs in exercises against other aircraft, I don't think anyone thinks F-22 isn't a known factor in terms of combat capabilities.


I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories but, putting aside for now the obvious need for the US to market this aircraft to other nations to even begin to cover development costs, it could be a case of deliberatly leaked negative reports to slow the enemies ( Russia & China?) attempts to develop a similar weapon. Australian pilots who’ve flown several versions of the thing are very, very secretive about their opinions and one wonders why given we keep upping the number ordered at insane prices.


----------



## Karl Rand

DrainBamage said:


> I don't subscribe to the theory that you'll never know how good something is until it's used in combat.


 It’s not so much knowing how good something is in itself its knowing how it competes with the enemies technology and who dominates.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Karl Rand said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we’ll never know until they unleash them against the Russians over Ukraine.
> That is if the love affair between Putin and Trump allows.
> US’s priciest F-35 stealth fighter crashes
Click to expand...


The cause of the crash was a faulty fuel tube.  That has been corrected and all F-35s (all versions) are back flying.  The A and the B are back to being full  operational.  With over 100K flying hours, having 1 loss is actually a great feat for a new weapon system.


----------



## DrainBamage

Karl Rand said:


> I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories but, putting aside for now the obvious need for the US to market this aircraft to other nations to even begin to cover development costs


They had partner nations sharing the development costs and plenty of countries that had already committed to the plane to the point where going in another direction would hamstring their defense capabilities. See Canada, they are fudging around for political reasons so are stuck buying used F-18s from Australia while still quietly paying their part of the development costs every year. Japan is about to triple their original order, Israel has taken the option for their full 75, Italy has slowed down their purchase pace but committed to same number, etc. the only marketing at this point is to pad Lockheed Martin profits by selling to Fins, Germans, etc. that weren't originally signed up.



Karl Rand said:


> Australian pilots who’ve flown several versions of the thing are very, very secretive about their opinions and one wonders why given we keep upping the number ordered at insane prices.


What insane prices? Info on last LRIP is here: F-35 LRIP 11 Signed: $89M For An F-35A, Including Engine — But SC Crash Casts Shadow

The last batch of F-35As now cost 89 million, and are projected to be a lot closer to 85 million next year and close to 80 million in 2020. A Eurofighter costs more than that, hell a new Superbug runs you over 70 million and it's a far less capable 4th gen aircraft.


----------



## DrainBamage

Looks like Japan has settled on 105 more F-35s, upping their total from 42 to 107 and becoming passing UK to become second only to USA in planned F-35 numbers. They already have ten A models.

Japan Heeds Trump’s Call With American-Made Defense Spending Spree
The cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Tuesday approved an increase of Japan’s existing order for 42 F-35s to 147 of the aircraft as part of new defense plans that include the development of Tokyo’s first post-World War II aircraft carriers. Around 40 of the jets will be the F-35B version, which can take off and land vertically and will be used on two flat-top destroyers that will be refitted to carry aircraft.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019'.


Well it's finally 2019, and of course we can now look back at Manonthestreet's steady stream of bullshit. F-35 was indeed firing it's get well before 2019 with the Block 3F release.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> No it wont....2019 was what was just published


Of course Manonthestreet was wrong here as well, USMC flew a combat sortie in Afghanistan in 2018.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> the three models of the F-35 won’t be declared to have full combat capability until they undergo vigorous operational exercises. Those won’t begin until August 2018 at the earliest and then will last as long as a year. That would be a year later than planned.  Lockheed’s F-35 Deals Barred Until Air Force Vouches for Fixes
> DO nothing air force still all show, no punch til 2019.....


Here is Manonthestreet's brilliant wisdom again, F-35 was declared full combat capable with Block 3F and it's been used in combat by both Israel and USA.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap





Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 will be dead long before F-16


LM delivered 91 F-35s in 2018, exactly as planned.  Production target for 2019 in 130 F-35s. Japan just ordered over 100 more, on top of their initial 42. In October Belgium picked F-35 as it's new fighter, they want 34. Switzerland just kicked off their new fighter competition, want to guess what will win that? Germany is weighing the nuclear weapon sharing obligations in deciding how to replace their Tornadoes, Eurofighter isn't qualified but it's already on F-35s upgrade timeline.

Sure sounds like a program death spiral.



Manonthestreet said:


> Sounds like Naval version is in real trouble...landing gear needs full rework.


USN just completed qualification of F-35C aboard USS Carl Vinson, expect to see F-35C declared IOC within a couple months. That landing gear issue you got all drama queen over turned out to be a minor tweak to the tension bar.

Sure sounds like real trouble.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019'.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's finally 2019, and of course we can now look back at Manonthestreet's steady stream of bullshit. F-35 was indeed firing it's get well before 2019 with the Block 3F release.
Click to expand...


I have to give Monobreath aa  break on this one.  He's finally given up on this venture.  I don't demand he come in and drop to his knees and beg forgiveness.


----------



## there4eyeM

With production now going, prices have been discounted. A recent contract made it over $800,000,000./ea.
Too many dollars, not enough sense.
Ooops! Big mistake. $89,000,000.00§
My apologies.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> With production now going, prices have been discounted. A recent contract made it over $800,000,000./ea.
> Too many dollars, not enough sense.
> Ooops! Big mistake. $89,000,000.00§
> My apologies.



Meanwhile, a full tilt F-16 with half the toys goes for that much.  And a full tilt F-15 goes for more than 115mil.  The Bargain Basement F-18 still can be had for about 70mil.  So at 89mil  a copy, it's not out of line when compared to 4th gen fighters that have little chance against it in a war zone.

You can pay for last decades (actually a few decades old) which costs more or you can pay for something from this decade that is light years ahead.  You do have a choice.  Do you buy a F-150 Ford with one of the Best Records on the books or do you buy a used Chevy that's been run to death.  Many countries are faced with this right now.  If they can afford a new F-15(?) then they can also afford a new F-35A as long as the US is willing to sell it to them.  If the US isn't willing then France has a deal for you at about the same price for a 4th gen fighter.


----------



## there4eyeM

It strikes this poster that the thinking is outmoded. Many, deadly, small and cheap will overwhelm few, big and expensive, I'm afraid. A.I. and long range stand off weapons could easily deplete present systems of defense. It is highly likely that aircraft carriers are today what battleships were in 1940. Little, cheap airplanes defeated the behemoths.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> It strikes this poster that the thinking is outmoded. Many, deadly, small and cheap will overwhelm few, big and expensive, I'm afraid. A.I. and long range stand off weapons could easily deplete present systems of defense. It is highly likely that aircraft carriers are today what battleships were in 1940. Little, cheap airplanes defeated the behemoths.



One would think that until you consider that those VunderVeapons that the Chinese and the Russians have to kill our carriers have to have so many things go right that the chance of them hitting within 200 miles of a carrier is more like a billion to one.  

Okay, Fellas, they are getting ready to shoot their newest carrier killer missile at our carrier.

1.  Kill all the engines
2.  Turn off all countermeasures
3.  Send all the support ships home
4.  Turn on all the lights
5.  Blare all the sirens

That should do it..............We'll wait.

What do you mean, they missed by 150 miles?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> It strikes this poster that the thinking is outmoded. Many, deadly, small and cheap will overwhelm few, big and expensive, I'm afraid. A.I. and long range stand off weapons could easily deplete present systems of defense. It is highly likely that aircraft carriers are today what battleships were in 1940. Little, cheap airplanes defeated the behemoths.



You left out what got those little cheap fighters there in the first place.  The Carrier.


----------



## there4eyeM

The airplanes were just platforms for ordinance delivery. A man in a complicated and heavy plane guides a bomb to a ship.
Today, we fly the bomb itself much faster and much farther than those planes. Low cost, low risk, rapid fabrication time, no pilot training time.
Besides, if you don't have the wherewithal to build a fleet of carriers, you might vigorously seek other avenues, and humans are mighty inventive when it comes to destruction.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> The airplanes were just platforms for ordinance delivery. A man in a complicated and heavy plane guides a bomb to a ship.
> Today, we fly the bomb itself much faster and much farther than those planes. Low cost, low risk, rapid fabrication time, no pilot training time.
> Besides, if you don't have the wherewithal to build a fleet of carriers, you might vigorously seek other avenues, and humans are mighty inventive when it comes to destruction.



Doesn't it t make sense that if a country is capable of building the absolute best carriers force that it can also build the best other systems as well?  Same goes for not being able to build the best carrier  and then claiming all kinds of VunderVeapons.  Our Military tracked all their DF-21 flights.  Those are damned hard to hide.  We know how they work, what makes them work and what makes them not work.  I won't go into it all but there are 7 things that have to go perfect for them to hit a carrier and they haven't been able to get all 7 right yet.  

And with all the Hoopidolah, the DF-21 is still a conventional Ballistic Missile that delivers a warhead package.  The Aegis and others in that class are built to intercept those threats.  Japan's new ship just intercepted a ballistic missile recently.  The only reason the US doesn't knock every launch done by North Korea is that we don't want the other side to know our real capabilities.  Plus, if one gets through, we look a bit foolish and it's almost certain if enough are launched something is going to get through.  But attacking a carrier is another thing.  They are going to throw up so much crap that nothing will get through no matter how you do it.  That is, unless you use a lazer from space and don't think of your weapons system of being that safe either.  The Navy doesn't brag about what it can do.  They don't have to.  The Chinese and the Russians do and they over brag a bit.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.....



But you do have enough rounds in the gun to drop a sd bomb from 30K within a few feet of the zero point without giving away your position.  Or guiding in Naval Guns and Missiles well past their established ranges without giving away the F-35Bs position.  Yah, I know, Monobreath, it still be incomplete until Mod 5A where it fries the Bacon and delivers the Eggs and Bacon to the Pilots Mess.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you do have enough rounds in the gun to drop a sd bomb from 30K within a few feet of the zero point without giving away your position.  Or guiding in Naval Guns and Missiles well past their established ranges without giving away the F-35Bs position.  Yah, I know, Monobreath, it still be incomplete until Mod 5A where it fries the Bacon and delivers the Eggs and Bacon to the Pilots Mess.
Click to expand...

once you open bay doors you give away your position,


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you do have enough rounds in the gun to drop a sd bomb from 30K within a few feet of the zero point without giving away your position.  Or guiding in Naval Guns and Missiles well past their established ranges without giving away the F-35Bs position.  Yah, I know, Monobreath, it still be incomplete until Mod 5A where it fries the Bacon and delivers the Eggs and Bacon to the Pilots Mess.
Click to expand...

Naval guns in Afghanistan,,,,,,give that idiot  a promotion


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you do have enough rounds in the gun to drop a sd bomb from 30K within a few feet of the zero point without giving away your position.  Or guiding in Naval Guns and Missiles well past their established ranges without giving away the F-35Bs position.  Yah, I know, Monobreath, it still be incomplete until Mod 5A where it fries the Bacon and delivers the Eggs and Bacon to the Pilots Mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once you open bay doors you give away your position,
Click to expand...


Let's make things fair.  Once you open those doors, you freeze in the air.  Don't fly up, don't fly down, don't fly left and don't fly right.  Just freeze in mid air.  I know the F-35b can do this for a few minutes but now we have to figure out how to do it with the A and C models in order to comply with your requirements.  Besides, the F-35 doors opened still makes him very stealthy.  Not as stealthy as if they are closed.  And they aren't open long enough for you to be certain there really is something there much less track and lock on long enough to get a kill.  But we'll try and cooperate in the future by having the F-35 (all models) freeze in mid air once the open the launch doors.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you do have enough rounds in the gun to drop a sd bomb from 30K within a few feet of the zero point without giving away your position.  Or guiding in Naval Guns and Missiles well past their established ranges without giving away the F-35Bs position.  Yah, I know, Monobreath, it still be incomplete until Mod 5A where it fries the Bacon and delivers the Eggs and Bacon to the Pilots Mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naval guns in Afghanistan,,,,,,give that idiot  a promotion
Click to expand...


Meanwhile,  back in the real world, there are F-35Bs just outside the South China Sea which the Chinese are quite aware of.  You don't get out much, do you.


----------



## Manonthestreet

A-10s Come To The Rescue Of Desperate Troops In Afghanistan In This Awesome Gun Camera Footage
That's Close Air and F-35 is wholly deficient


----------



## Manonthestreet

Judging by latest Chinese statements they aren't impressed


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> A-10s Come To The Rescue Of Desperate Troops In Afghanistan In This Awesome Gun Camera Footage
> That's Close Air and F-35 is wholly deficient



That takes too long.  Now to show the Grand Daddy to the Modern Close Air Support, the AC-130


Here is an AC working against the Taliban.  Not real exiting for the AC but it was very exciting and very short for the objectives.  This bird can  even kill running individuals.  And he's above  the  threshold altitude for most ground fired shoulder fired guns and missiles.  He goes where A-10s fear to enter.  And while the A-10 is good for one short mission of no more than 150 miles one way, the AC will be in the air for 6 to 8 hours with plenty of ammo (25mm, 30mm, 40mm, 105mm, Hellfires depending on the model)  The thumping you hear is the firing of the 40mm.  It fires a clip off 5 at a   time and they  speed load it.  The 40mm was taken right off decommissioned Naval Destroyers.  


So go ahead and talk up the need for the A-10.  Meanwhile, it's mission is done better by the AC-130 that was originally designed for that mission instead of just adapted to it.  They aren't buying any more A-10s but they ARE buying more AC-130s.  I know these birds well.  Let me introduce one that I am very, very familiar with.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Judging by latest Chinese statements they aren't impressed



Would you admit to anything like that if you were the Chinese running a bluff?  What good would the bluff be then.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Riigghhhttttt,,,suddenly the f35 doesn't need to be better or as good or just marginally worse than A-10.....move the goalposts much


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by latest Chinese statements they aren't impressed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you admit to anything like that if you were the Chinese running a bluff?  What good would the bluff be then.
Click to expand...

Question is who is running a bluff....


----------



## Manonthestreet

B version is only one that makes total sense.....I wouldn't go with any more than 12-16 pane sq per Ford.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by latest Chinese statements they aren't impressed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you admit to anything like that if you were the Chinese running a bluff?  What good would the bluff be then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question is who is running a bluff....
Click to expand...


WE have already track both the so called Carrier Killer missiles and find that they can't come within 200 miles of a carrier on a good day.  There are just too many variables that all have to be right to make them hit their intended target.  Even the new "Vunder" Fighters  have some serious problems that the Chinese are fielding.   There are many good reasons the Chinese aren't making too many Military Equipment Sales lately.  Too many crash or cease to operate on delivery or even before delivery or on the way to delivery.  The World agrees.  If you can't or won't buy American or Western, buy Russian.  At least the Russian stuff will get there in one piece.  

The Chinese are trying to learn what it's taken the US and Russia about a hundred years to learn about it's pilots.  The Chinese Pilots are too dependent on the ground controllers.  At least the Russians have broken away from that so much any more.  The Chinese are trying to make that transition but there is a reason the United States is the best at it it's that we've been on the top the longest and worked to stay that way.  The Chinese have been near the bottom for so long it's a long haul out of the cellar.  So, to try and make up for it, they use Bravado of a series of bluffs.  The Russians do as well but they don't have to as much.

As for the US, when our F-15s flew war games against other countries, our pilots were given real stringent directions and borders they had to fly inside of.  The results was, the F-15 was well below it's capabilities at all times.  Even then, the F-15 won most of the fights.  But sometimes, some countries would sneak in a win.  There is no reason that they aren't doing the same thing with the F-22 as well.  Case in point, 2 F-15Cs jumped 2 Mig-29s and it became a close in dogfight.  No guns since it's almost impossible to do a gun kill these days.  One F-15 flew one of the Mig-29s into the ground.  The other F-15 got into a real live dogfight with a fighter that, on paper, should have eaten it's lunch.  Not so that day.  The F-15 ended up getting a Aim-9 kill.  Right after that, the Iraqi Pilots either flew to Iran or refused to take off.  The F-15 CAN out manuever a Mig-29 afterall.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Think main concern carrier wise is a hypersonic from a sub.....judging by our inability not to crash into cargo ships lately not real confident about our sensor use.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Think main concern carrier wise is a hypersonic from a sub.....judging by our inability not to crash into cargo ships lately not real confident about our sensor use.



The chinese launching anything not pointed straight up is also questionable.


----------



## DrainBamage

there4eyeM said:


> It strikes this poster that the thinking is outmoded. Many, deadly, small and cheap will overwhelm few, big and expensive, I'm afraid.


F-35 is the few? They are buying thousands of them.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you *dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.*....


Ahhh so when USMC proves you wrong by flying a combat sortie in the ME it must be a conspiracy theory. The entire thing was fake, because Manonthestreet is willing to suspend reality to stick to his guns and avoid admitting how wrong he was. Hilarious.

Regarding gun run, you were wrong about when it would deployed (as you've been wrong about everything in this thread) and now piling bullshit on top of bullshit...

Pentagon: F-35 Gun Will Fire in 2017
The weapon, one of many slated for the aircraft, is based on a design with a proven track record on both the Harrier and the AC-130 gunship, he said. Linked to the aircraft’s fire control and targeting software, it will fire highly accurate rounds at air-to-ground or air-to-air targets, he said. Also, the exposure point — the time it takes for the pilot to point the plane and its gun at a target — may only last a fraction of a second,* translating to nine or 10 bursts of fire, he said.*

Sucks when you try to make something up and get exposed again doesn't it? 

To further demonstrate how silly it is thing "fact" you're producing that it can only do one gun run, here's a video of an F-35A firing short 12-15 round bursts, which are clearly shorter than the 180 round barrel emptying video that's floating around from ground testing.


To even further demonstrate how silly your fixation on the ammo of this gun, here is the magazine of various other modern fighters:

F-35, 25mm GAU-22/A with 180 rounds.
Typhoon, 27mm BK 27 with 150 rounds.
Gripen, 27mm BK 27 with 120 rounds.
Rafale, 30mm GIAT 30 with 125 rounds.
Su-35, 30mm GSh-30-1 with 150 rounds

Now could it be that almost every aircraft manufacturer across the world has gone in the wrong direction in recent decades with fewer heavier more accurate rounds, and Manonthestreet is some lone beacon of wisdom that realizes some secret weakness that by happenstance every modern fighter being produced has? You don't have to answer that, it wasn't really a question.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> once you open bay doors you give away your position,


Hah hah we'll add this one to your greatest hits.

Just like all those B-2s and F-117s that got shot down in contested airspace when they opened their bay doors to deliver weapons right? Because it's not about a tracking radar, and locking on, and aircraft that move very quickly, and noisy RF environments, nope in Manonthestreet's simplified video game world the bay doors opening gives an exact position of a stealth aircraft and that is when they get shot down. F-22? Flawed, it's got bay doors. China and Russia spending millions to produce stealth aircraft with internal weapons? All fatally flawed, they don't think as deep as our forum expert Manonthestreet. They didn't think of the bay doors! Damn.

This goes right up there with your belief that all other combat aircraft fly around airshow clean and and top speed max altitude, getting the jump on an aircraft that has a usable mach 1.6 in combat config. That F-35 has no chance trying to outrun those Thunderbird pilots at the airshow!

You're so naive it's almost cute.


----------



## DrainBamage

F-35 releasing 5 Paveway IVs simultaneously, four to stationary and one to hit a moving target.


----------



## there4eyeM

With the incredible advances in tech, anyone who thinks a weapons system is being built that will be effective out to decades from now is not qualified to be building it. this vast expenditure by the U.S. is another display of having too much money to spend on the wrong things.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> With the incredible advances in tech, anyone who thinks a weapons system is being built that will be effective out to decades from now is not qualified to be building it. this vast expenditure by the U.S. is another display of having too much money to spend on the wrong things.



And if you don't expend it and fall way behind the other 2 then is that a good thing?


----------



## DrainBamage

History doesn't agree with you, B-52s built fifty years ago have proven quite effective. USS Carl Vinson is still a formidable aircraft carrier (which ironically will probably be first to have an F-35 squadron) it was built in 1982. M-1 is still considered one of the best main battle tanks in the world, it was delivered in 1980. F-15 is still in production and quite effective, it first flew in the early 70s.


----------



## there4eyeM

The history mentioned is so in the past that it doesn't apply to today. To repeat, all those systems mentioned are obsolete now and will either be scrapped or destroyed by twenty years from now.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> The history mentioned is so in the past that it doesn't apply to today. To repeat, all those systems mentioned are obsolete now and will either be scrapped or destroyed by twenty years from now.



The problem is, when you build it right in the first place either by design or just by fool accident, you have to completely reinvent things before they become obsolete.  Take the Buff for instance.  The reason the B-1 and the B-2 are on the chopping block and the Buff isn't is that the Buff was built right in the first place.  Both the B-1 and the B-2 operating costs are far above the Buffs.  And if they go ahead and do the engine upgrade on the Buff like they should have done years ago then it just gets better.  A Bomber only has to get the weapons within 1500 miles of the target these days for nuclear war.  And the Bomber has to get the conventional within 30 miles.  The Buff does a good job on both counts.  And it does it cheaper than either the B-1 or the B-2.  With the coming of the B-21, the B-1 and the B-2 become obsolete while the Buff just soldiers on.  

Are you aware that the old M-60 Tank is really just an upgraded M-26 from WWII?  And with the upgrades, it's still able to go up against any tank in the world including the M-1 Abrams and hold it's own.  They are still offering upgrade kits to the M-60 because there are so many of them around.  Speaking of the M-1 Abrams, that's another thing that just gets better because they built it right.  They keep upgrading it over and over and it just gets better.  

The F-15 and the F-16 aren't any different.  But their days are numbered.  Things for them have been reinvented.  But it's going to take a very long time (more like 30 years) for them to become obsolete and probably only in the USA.  And it's not going to from the F-22 since it's replacement is already gone on to the testing mode, at least it's components that we know of and they ain't saying anything else.  The F-16 is still going to be around but the F-35A pretty much puts a damper on it for about the same price but not everyone will be offered to buy them from the US and other Countries.  This means that the Russian and Chinese birds are just about 15 years from all becoming completely obsolete unless they can make their current stuff obsolete themselves.  China is trying but they lack the precision to manufacture the tolerances required that the US has.  In fact, there is NO other country outside the US that has that capability right now.  Of course, that will change as time goes by.  In the meantime, the F-15 and the F-16 is still relevant and so is the SU-27 and SU-35 sort of.

The M-2 Mah Deuce was built right the first time and only required an upgrade in how the barrel mounted.  Otherwise, most of the parts interchange from the original WWII version, Vietnam Version and the modern version of today.  It's not the gun that makes it work so well, it's the 50 cal Machine Gun Ammo that makes it work.  The same can be said about the 20mm Vulcan.  It was first made for the F-104 and is standard now and has been for the last 60 years.  All of these, you would have to reinvent the wheel before they become obsolete.  Maybe when a workable portable laser become available.

We are still using the old Bofar 40mm Cannon from WWII Destroyers on AC-130 Gunships.  Why?  Because it works.  When you watch a gunship in operation and here that thumping sound, that's the 40mms being fired.  Those puppies are good enough to take out anything short of a main battle tank.  Right next to them will be a 105mm Howitzer (WWII) that can handle even a main battle tank outside the range of the Tanks weapons.  Got some serious reinventing to go to get rid of that firepower.  And all this is mounted on a bird that goes back to 1953.  If you get a chance to go to the Wright Patterson Museum, look at the first C-130 on display there.  The tail number is 53-00035.  That was the second C-130 off the production line.  The first one flew around the flag pole and was disassemble to inspect it.  The one at the Museum is the second.  But there are some stark differences in what is parked there and what the Air Force bought in 1954.    For you history buffs, I'll start a new message on this.


----------



## DrainBamage

there4eyeM said:


> The history mentioned is so in the past that it doesn't apply to today.


Why not? What happened where an F-35 produced today cannot be upgraded and effective well into it's service life like every other military aircraft in modern history? You upgrade weapons, avionics, add features, etc.



there4eyeM said:


> To repeat, all those systems mentioned are obsolete now and will either be scrapped or destroyed by twenty years from now.


An F-15 isn't obsolete now, obsolete = still one of the best fighter aircraft on the planet which is why they are still produced and still purchased? Show me a list of the top tanks in the world that doesn't include the M-1, something you're claiming is obsolete.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 will be dead long before F-16


The F-35 death spiral you've been expertly predicting for years continues to blow up in your face. Hello Singapore, which has 60 F-16s that need replacing....


Singapore identifies F-35 fighter jet to replace F-16s, expects to buy ‘small number’ for full testing
The announcement ends years of speculation that Singapore would eventually decide on the fifth-generation F-35 as a replacement for the F-16s. Last June, Dr Ng said a decision on the replacement would be made in the coming months, although he would only say MINDEF was studying a range of options, including the F-35, Eurofighter Typhoon and Chinese-made stealth fighters. The decision is now clear as MINDEF has opted for the radar-evading F-35


----------



## there4eyeM

Swarms are being prepared. Big, valuable targets are strategically passé. Targets have to get smaller or be able to disappear. Attack is reaching a point of superiority over defense. Only superior swarms might work.
"Mr. President,...Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!
Air Force awards 'Gray Wolf' networked missile contract -- Defense Systems
USAF Wants Swarms of Cheap "Gray Wolf" Cruise Missiles That Can Overwhelm Enemy Defenses


----------



## DrainBamage

there4eyeM said:


> Swarms are being prepared. Big, valuable targets are strategically passé. Targets have to get smaller or be able to disappear. Attack is reaching a point of superiority over defense. Only superior swarms might work.
> "Mr. President,...Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!
> Air Force awards 'Gray Wolf' networked missile contract -- Defense Systems
> USAF Wants Swarms of Cheap "Gray Wolf" Cruise Missiles That Can Overwhelm Enemy Defenses


Dude it's a "science and technology" project, not some harbinger of end of platforms that would launch them. I get you're all enamored with the cheap swarm thing, but I don't think you've given much thought to practical application just some vague notion of something that appeals to you. Did you see the part in your link where they talk about using B-52s, F-15Es, F-35s, etc. to launch them or did you just gloss over that part and imagine some inexpensive wonder-weapon that flies 5,000 miles on it's own with a warp drive powered by dlithium crystals?

A networked missile is nothing new, see LRASM.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swarms are being prepared. Big, valuable targets are strategically passé. Targets have to get smaller or be able to disappear. Attack is reaching a point of superiority over defense. Only superior swarms might work.
> "Mr. President,...Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!
> Air Force awards 'Gray Wolf' networked missile contract -- Defense Systems
> USAF Wants Swarms of Cheap "Gray Wolf" Cruise Missiles That Can Overwhelm Enemy Defenses
> 
> 
> 
> Dude it's a "science and technology" project, not some harbinger of end of platforms that would launch them. I get you're all enamored with the cheap swarm thing, but I don't think you've given much thought to practical application just some vague notion of something that appeals to you. Did you see the part in your link where they talk about using B-52s, F-15Es, F-35s, etc. to launch them or did you just gloss over that part and imagine some inexpensive wonder-weapon that flies 5,000 miles on it's own with a warp drive powered by dlithium crystals?
> 
> A networked missile is nothing new, see LRASM.
Click to expand...

The LRASM is operational.  It's operation on the B-1 at  this time but is programed come online with the F-18 this year.  meaning, the F-35 as well.  I don't see the B-1 to be the major carrier of it since the range of the missile is limited to no more than 300 miles and that also limits the F-18 but it sounds like it's  ideal for subs and the F-35.

A followon is coming in 2024.  I imagine that a smaller version  will be introduced for the F-35 that it can carry internally but so far, it will have to be carried externally making the existing platform not really ready for prime time.  Swarm weapons are coming butt they just aren't quite there yet.


----------



## there4eyeM

Don't underestimate the enemy's imagination and inventiveness.


----------



## DrainBamage

there4eyeM said:


> Don't underestimate the enemy's imagination and inventiveness.


Of course not, but vague platitudes about the enemy and fantasies about swarm technology don't qualify your belief that building a capable fighter plane to replace the ones we have now that are starting to age is a poor idea.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The LRASM is operational.  It's operation on the B-1 at  this time but is programed come online with the F-18 this year.  meaning, the F-35 as well.


Operational on F-18 is not same as F-35. I'm sure it'll eventually be available on F-35 with a future update but right now there is nowhere on F-35 weapons timeline that includes LRASM. Block 5 update in early 2020s maybe.

Then again... who cares? There will be Super Hornet squadrons on carriers well into the 2030s so they will always have F-18s to act as a missile trucks. Use the F-35 as a sensor platform, even internally carry AARGM-ER while the Super Bugs sling LRASMs from a hundred miles away.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

there4eyeM said:


> Don't underestimate the enemy's imagination and inventiveness.



The majority of the "Enemies" imagination and inventiveness is stolen from the US and it's Allies.  If we are having troubles doing it, chances are, so are they.  When we have a break through, chances are, they will later because they will steal it later on.


----------



## DrainBamage

Interview with F-35 pilot, hilariously he seems to be talking directly to our resident swallower-of-myths-via-blog ManOnTheStreet in first question from excerpt below. This will no doubt be yet another opinion by someone who actually flies the plane (as opposed to blogs by folks who don't leave their basements) that will be dismissed at propaganda and lies by a pilot who's part of the international and cross service conspiracy by USAF, USMC, Norway, UK, etc. to carry out a massive coverup.

Interview with a British F-35B Lightning II pilot: Semper Fidelis to Semper Paratus


*What were your first impressions of the F-35B? *
_Technologically mind-blowing and a true engineering marvel.  As a pilot it flies extremely smoothly and the handling is exceptional, especially when converting flight regimes to slow speed or jet-borne modes; that transition is almost imperceptibly smooth with no adverse characteristics.  High angle-of-attack manoeuvring is very easy and forgiving, with excellent nose and flight control ‘authority’ throughout.  Power is very apparent with impressive acceleration in dry power on take-off._

*Which three words would you use to describe the F-35B?  *
_Lethal; Game-changing (I consider that one word!); Growth._

*What are the greatest myths about the F-35B? *
_That it isn’t operational; that stealth doesn’t ‘work’; that external stores on F-35 defeats the point of its design._

*What are the best and worst things about the aircraft? *
_The best thing is how quickly and effectively the F-35 allows the pilot to make decisions – fusing sensor and other data from onboard and off-board sources to display what’s out there and what’s going on.  Worst thing? I’d like a bit more fuel but what pilot doesn’t?!_

*How good is the situational awareness compared to other aircraft you have flown and how does that change things? *
_Nothing compares to it.  Nothing.  And information  changes everything.  When you look at Boyd’s well-known OODA loop, traditionally the hardest things are to answer ‘what’s out there’, ‘what’s it doing’, ‘what do I need to do’.  That decision loop can cause paralysis which can lead to a quick demise in a combat fight.  F-35 helps enormously in this regard and allows the pilot to act rather than react – reacting is what we’ll make the enemy do. Constantly._

*How would you rate its BVR capabilities?  *
_Second to none really.  First to see is first to shoot, is first to kill.  I recently heard a comment from someone that ‘…fighting the F-35 is like going into a boxing match and your opponent doesn’t even know you’re in the ring yet!’  I like that comment because our lethality is enhanced by being able to deliver the killer or knock-out blow to our opponents before they get enough awareness on what’s going on to prepare or do something about it._

*How would you rate its ground attack and recce abilities compared to the GR4 or Typhoon? *
_We only have Paveway IV currently, however this will expand with SPEAR 3 and other weapons in future but the single weapon option is a bit of a limitation of sorts right now, even though PWIV is an excellent weapon that’s proven itself against our enemies time and again.  There is also potential for UK to procure the GAU-22/A Gun Pod if needs be and the USMC have already employed it.  The variety of recce options on F-35 are good – from EOTS (IR) to DAS, to Radar Mapping, we have a true all-weather and, in many cases, multi-spectral recce capability.  However, F-35 isn’t a dedicated “recce” platform so you can perhaps understand why there’s no pod like the RAPTor on Tornado as an example._


----------



## DrainBamage

When pilots talk of strengths of different fighters they usually credit the F-18 with superior angle-of-attack, which is far more useful than top speed and often more useful than turn radius. Same praise has been expressed for F-35, seen in this absolutely ridiculous footage:


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> When pilots talk of strengths of different fighters they usually credit the F-18 with superior angle-of-attack, which is far more useful than top speed and often more useful than turn radius. Same praise has been expressed for F-35, seen in this absolutely ridiculous footage:







F-22 did it first, and better.



or if you want to hit the waaaay back machine the SU-27 is pretty impressive too.  Over 25 years ago!


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

*I will tell you what.  Put the A 10 up against the F 35 or the F 22 the the Wart Hog will blow them out of the sky.*


----------



## Dan Stubbs

*The Fly Boy love their "
Hot Rods" but the don't really do the job  that is needed.  Fast yes but We guys on the ground don't trust them.  To much "Friendly" fire.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> When pilots talk of strengths of different fighters they usually credit the F-18 with superior angle-of-attack, which is far more useful than top speed and often more useful than turn radius. Same praise has been expressed for F-35, seen in this absolutely ridiculous footage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-22 did it first, and better.
> 
> 
> 
> or if you want to hit the waaaay back machine the SU-27 is pretty impressive too.  Over 25 years ago!
Click to expand...


All it proves is that your bird is well balanced.  Nothing more.  The Cobra Manuever is worthless in combat.  Right after you do it, you are left helpless. You have lost everything.  At that point, a SE-5 can take you out.  This is another reason the SU-35 isn't the terror it's suppose to be. If it uses it's vector thrust to out do, say, a F-15 then it's going to left hanging in the air and the F-15s wingman will easily take it out.  After learning this, the F-15EX and CX became viable again and will be in the 2020 Military Budget.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dan Stubbs said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I will tell you what.  Put the A 10 up against the F 35 or the F 22 the the Wart Hog will blow them out of the sky.*
Click to expand...


WE did a little test on air to air using an A-7D versus an A-10A.  Once the lessons were learned, the A-7 could take the A-10 out 100% of the time with just it's gun.  Until that lesson was learned, the A-10 did win.  But after the tactics were learned, the A-10 proved to be worthless as an Air to Air fighter for anything that can go transonic or higher every time with either guns or missiles.  If you are going gun to gun, you do have to treat that A-10 gun with lots and lots of respect but there are ways to take it out.  The gun doesn't fire too well when the bird that's around it is falling to the earth.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> F-22 did it first, and better.


That is exactly what it reminded me of, the F-22 routine in airshows.


----------



## DrainBamage

Dan Stubbs said:


> *The Fly Boy love their "*
> *Hot Rods" but the don't really do the job  that is needed.  Fast yes but We guys on the ground don't trust them.  To much "Friendly" fire.*



A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths

*A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths*
_WASHINGTON — The Air Force A-10 attack jet has killed more U.S. troops in friendly fire incidents and more Afghan civilians than any other aircraft flown by the U.S. military, according to data declassified and obtained by USA TODAY. ... Since 2001, the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents that killed 10 U.S. troops. The next highest is the B-1B bomber, which killed five soldiers last year in one incident. Friendly fire deaths are exceptionally rare. There have been 45 total friendly fire incidents out of about 140,000 missions flown by the Air Force, Navy and Marines.The A-10 is the aircraft responsible for the most civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2010, when data on those deaths started to be collected. Thirty-five people have been killed compared with 19 killed by the Harrier, data show. _


When you're talking four incidents out of 140k sorties it's really statistically insignificant IMO, bottom line in the modern era friendly fire incidents are extremely rare and anyone claiming "too much friendly fire" as a knock on any of the CAS platforms is talking out of their ass.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Fly Boy love their "*
> *Hot Rods" but the don't really do the job  that is needed.  Fast yes but We guys on the ground don't trust them.  To much "Friendly" fire.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths
> 
> *A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths*
> _WASHINGTON — The Air Force A-10 attack jet has killed more U.S. troops in friendly fire incidents and more Afghan civilians than any other aircraft flown by the U.S. military, according to data declassified and obtained by USA TODAY. ... Since 2001, the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents that killed 10 U.S. troops. The next highest is the B-1B bomber, which killed five soldiers last year in one incident. Friendly fire deaths are exceptionally rare. There have been 45 total friendly fire incidents out of about 140,000 missions flown by the Air Force, Navy and Marines.The A-10 is the aircraft responsible for the most civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2010, when data on those deaths started to be collected. Thirty-five people have been killed compared with 19 killed by the Harrier, data show. _
> 
> 
> When you're talking four incidents out of 140k sorties it's really statistically insignificant IMO, bottom line in the modern era friendly fire incidents are extremely rare and anyone claiming "too much friendly fire" as a knock on any of the CAS platforms is talking out of their ass.
Click to expand...


When things get too close, they call in the AC-130 that can do pinpoint accuracy.


----------



## DrainBamage

Pinpoint is a relative term, but it would be interesting to know the CEP of the 105 on an AC-130 versus a modern PGM like an Small Diameter Bomb. I'm not doubting the 105 is more accurate since I have no idea, but clearly an aircraft flying thousands of feet up that is aiming by going in a slow circle tilted at a certain degree has plenty of variables in the accuracy equation as well. At the very least the 105 would be a lot cheaper per shot than dropping PGMs.

AC-130 is interesting in how much they play around with the weapons, probably because of the relatively small fleet size and more agile control by Special Operations Command instead of the more bloated USAF acquisition. They took off the two 20s and added a 25mm cannon. Then they replaced the 25mm and 40mm with two 30mm cannons, then changed their mind when new fire control system allowed higher altitude and went back to the 25 and 40. They have versions without the 105, they've tinkered with Viper Strike or Griffin PGMs from the cargo bay, everything from SDBs to Hellfires to APKWS to JDAMs on the wing rails.

The latest thing they've been enamored with is GBU-69, which is a small glide weapon that is laser guided like APKWS (I think it uses same seeker) but packs a much bigger (36lb blast frag) punch since no wasted space on engine/fuel like with Hellfire and APKWS. SOCOM has contracted to acquire about 1,000 per year so they've clearly decided this is their PGM for the AC-130.

GBU-69:


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Pinpoint is a relative term, but it would be interesting to know the CEP of the 105 on an AC-130 versus a modern PGM like an Small Diameter Bomb. I'm not doubting the 105 is more accurate since I have no idea, but clearly an aircraft flying thousands of feet up that is aiming by going in a slow circle tilted at a certain degree has plenty of variables in the accuracy equation as well. At the very least the 105 would be a lot cheaper per shot than dropping PGMs.
> 
> AC-130 is interesting in how much they play around with the weapons, probably because of the relatively small fleet size and more agile control by Special Operations Command instead of the more bloated USAF acquisition. They took off the two 20s and added a 25mm cannon. Then they replaced the 25mm and 40mm with two 30mm cannons, then changed their mind when new fire control system allowed higher altitude and went back to the 25 and 40. They have versions without the 105, they've tinkered with Viper Strike or Griffin PGMs from the cargo bay, everything from SDBs to Hellfires to APKWS to JDAMs on the wing rails.
> 
> The latest thing they've been enamored with is GBU-69, which is a small glide weapon that is laser guided like APKWS (I think it uses same seeker) but packs a much bigger (36lb blast frag) punch since no wasted space on engine/fuel like with Hellfire and APKWS. SOCOM has contracted to acquire about 1,000 per year so they've clearly decided this is their PGM for the AC-130.
> 
> GBU-69:



If you can operate a squadron of A-10s then you can operate one AC-130 and have the same firepower.  Except the pinpoint accuracy will be much better.  And the enemy on the ground will only know something is blowing them up one at a time whether it's a building, Tank, Troop Carrier, Jeep, Toyota Pickup or people running for their lives.  There are a few mixes of weapons.  One model carries two 25mm, two 40mms and one 105.  Another carries two 30mms and one 105 and possibly the weapon you have mentioned including Hellfires.  

The newest is the Ghost Rider.  Precision Strike Package with 30mm and 105mm cannons and Standoff Precision Guided Munitions (i.e. GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb and AGM-176 Griffin missile).  

The AC hits within about 5 feet from center.  Of course, it's going to take a lot more out than a 5 foot circle in most cases.  And can elect to do area affect as well.  The new J model costs 115 mil a copy which is down from the W version that is aging that originally cost 135 mil a copy.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I will tell you what.  Put the A 10 up against the F 35 or the F 22 the the Wart Hog will blow them out of the sky.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WE did a little test on air to air using an A-7D versus an A-10A.  Once the lessons were learned, the A-7 could take the A-10 out 100% of the time with just it's gun.  Until that lesson was learned, the A-10 did win.  But after the tactics were learned, the A-10 proved to be worthless as an Air to Air fighter for anything that can go transonic or higher every time with either guns or missiles.  If you are going gun to gun, you do have to treat that A-10 gun with lots and lots of respect but there are ways to take it out.  The gun doesn't fire too well when the bird that's around it is falling to the earth.
Click to expand...


BTW, this was done after the A-7 lost the flyoff.  If the flyoff had been extended, the A-7 would have routinely downed the A-10.  But with a one day flyoff head to head, there was no learning curve and the 30mm won that fight.  The A-10 was just along for the ride.  Once the proper angle of attack was learned and the proper entry speed was learned, the A-7 could avoid the big gun every time and whittle away with it's 20mm canon until the A-10 could no longer fly.  Plus, the A-10 could not disengage since it was over 200 mph slower.  It was in the fight win or lose.  The A-7 could disengage any time the pilot wished.  The best bird did not win the flyoff.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The AC hits within about 5 feet from center.


What exactly does this mean in terms of CEP, anything can hit within 5 feet from center it's more about how often it does so given a set of shots. Is there any source for CEP of the 105 on AC-130 versus PGMs, I'd be really interested.


----------



## Likkmee

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

Waste of money. We have ICBM's. Scrap the rest and close all foreign bases.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AC hits within about 5 feet from center.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly does this mean in terms of CEP, anything can hit within 5 feet from center it's more about how often it does so given a set of shots. Is there any source for CEP of the 105 on AC-130 versus PGMs, I'd be really interested.
Click to expand...


I can't can't speak for tor the PGMs since I have no experience with them.  But I can for the 105 and it is that accurate.  The only time it can have that type of accuracy is on a stationary target.  That's the type of accuracy it needs to hit a parked vehicle each time.  The 105 is not the primary weapon though.  It's primary weapon is either the 40mm or the 25/30 mm.  If you ever listen to the sound track of an  AC working, that thump thump is the 40 going off.  The problem with the 105 is that it kicks the tail out when fired.  They use it only on hardened targets.  What makes it all work is the sensors and control booth.  While ballistics will affect the smaller stuff, the big stuff is less affected by anything like wind direction (usually figured in) or any other natural affects.  This is one reason why a slower 50 cal is much more accurate at extreme range than a smaller, faster caliber like a 30.  

You need to ask some of the Chopper weinies about the PGMs.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Likkmee said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Waste of money. We have ICBM's. Scrap the rest and close all foreign bases.
Click to expand...


Are you going to fire off those ICBMs everytime some crackpot wannabe invades another small country?  Yah, like Saddam would have listened to that one.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AC hits within about 5 feet from center.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly does this mean in terms of CEP, anything can hit within 5 feet from center it's more about how often it does so given a set of shots. Is there any source for CEP of the 105 on AC-130 versus PGMs, I'd be really interested.
Click to expand...


As for  tactical information on the ACs, there isn't much.  In fact, they are extremely busy but you don't hear about it.  While the other birds are regular service, the AC is Special Operations.  Even when it does something really great, you may not hear about it for 20 years or never hear about it.  During Vietnam, the AC-47 got all the press while the AC-130 didn't get any.  The AC-47 got all the newsclips and movie starring roles.  The only reason I know of the accuracy is, I spent time on the AC-130A and that was our accuracy with the 40s at 10,000 feet.  There is no reason that the accuracy got worse as time has gone by.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> But I can for the 105 and it is that accurate.


Right, but this is about as vague and unscientific a measure as you can get. It's going off a notion/impression by casual observation and not attempting to define what the word "accurate" means in this context. Of course a 105 can hit a parked car, but so can any modern laser guided munition. In fact modern LGBs can hit the trunk of the car if they want. I was more interested in whether AC-130 is _more_ accurate than PGMs.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> As for  tactical information on the ACs, there isn't much.  In fact, they are extremely busy but you don't hear about it.


It's pretty well known that AC-130s are highly worked and demand is greater than availability, so I have no idea why you think I've not heard about it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I can for the 105 and it is that accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but this is about as vague and unscientific a measure as you can get. It's going off a notion/impression by casual observation and not attempting to define what the word "accurate" means in this context. Of course a 105 can hit a parked car, but so can any modern laser guided munition. In fact modern LGBs can hit the trunk of the car if they want. I was more interested in whether AC-130 is _more_ accurate than PGMs.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter.  A Fighter or an Attack Bird only carries so many and can only launch so many per pass. The AC has entire racks full of 40 and 105 ammo and can fire them until they run out of ammo without having to turn around for another pass.  They are all accurate enough.  Is one more accurate than the other when the truck is left a burning hulk with one shot?  Who cares.  It's the fact it's left a burning hulk with one shot and so is all the others around it as well as the buildings, the running terrorist trying to escape meanwhile, the Mosque was completely left untouched.  All done in less than a minute.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for  tactical information on the ACs, there isn't much.  In fact, they are extremely busy but you don't hear about it.
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty well known that AC-130s are highly worked and demand is greater than availability, so I have no idea why you think I've not heard about it.
Click to expand...


Did I hit your butt a bit hard?  Try stepping back and taking a deep breath.  Others haven't heard of this.  This isn't for those that know, it's for those that don't.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> It doesn't matter.  A Fighter or an Attack Bird only carries so many and can only launch so many per pass. The AC has entire racks full of 40 and 105 ammo and can fire them until they run out of ammo without having to turn around for another pass.  They are all accurate enough.  Is one more accurate than the other when the truck is left a burning hulk with one shot?  Who cares.  It's the fact it's left a burning hulk with one shot and so is all the others around it as well as the buildings, the running terrorist trying to escape meanwhile, the Mosque was completely left untouched.  All done in less than a minute.


It matters in this discussion because you made a comment about how if they want pinpoint accuracy they call in an AC-130. This implies a greater level of accuracy than other options, which apparently nobody here knows is true or not so your comment was nonsensical. I know you're getting spun up because you're very thin skinned about being challenged but nobody is doubting the effectiveness of the AC-130, just trying to get to the bottom of this greater accuracy thing you implied.

Pointing out it has more ammo is just you stating the obvious once again, it doesn't answer the accuracy question.





Daryl Hunt said:


> Did I hit your butt a bit hard?  Try stepping back and taking a deep breath.  Others haven't heard of this.  This isn't for those that know, it's for those that don't.


I have no idea what you're talking about here,  but I'd guess you're somehow greatly overestimating my emotional attachment to this. You tend to state the obvious, or restate what someone else just said, it's peculiar.


----------



## SandSquid

Manonthestreet said:


> once you open bay doors you give away your position,



The great thing about the F35, is with it's speed and turn radius, unless you maintain on the same exact heading when you are seen with doors open, IF they are able to react in a minute to try and gain a visual or direct lock, you have 780 square miles and all sorts of altitude changes to find them in.  

Also listening to the pilots talk about their ability to run a battlefield without even firing a shot in that jet.  Being the datalink between land, sea and other air weapons by flying in, finding the enemy, and letting a ship off the coast send in the missile to take it out.  

As for the A-10 and especially the AC-130, they are great in our current fights against countries with no air force and very limited anti-aircraft weaponary.  

But again we are talking two completely different setups.  Yes a submarine, an aircraft carrier, and a Cruiser can take out a building.   All in different ways, and depending on the circumstances each has it's benefit.


----------



## DrainBamage

Then there's the whole kill chain the ManOnTheStreet is ignoring with his silly bay doors argument. Detection -> tracking -> targeting -> guidance -> terminal, even if the search radar got a blip from an F-35 that had it's bay doors open for 2 seconds where does that leave the rest? To take that farther, if you're in an aircraft with your radar emitting RF an F-22/F-35 will detect you passively from much farther than you radar can see them, and get in an advantageous position for a kill shot that you never saw coming. Your radar isn't detecting the bay doors on an aircraft on your rear quarter, and your life sucks because it got a shot off in the NEZ that you won't detect until it goes bulldog.

There are reports of F-22s shadowing Syrian fighters for 15 minutes as they looped over the region, getting close enough to inspect their weapon load underwing without being seen.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Then there's the whole kill chain the ManOnTheStreet is ignoring with his silly bay doors argument. Detection -> tracking -> targeting -> guidance -> terminal, even if the search radar got a blip from an F-35 that had it's bay doors open for 2 seconds where does that leave the rest? To take that farther, if you're in an aircraft with your radar emitting RF an F-22/F-35 will detect you passively from much farther than you radar can see them, and get in an advantageous position for a kill shot that you never saw coming. Your radar isn't detecting the bay doors on an aircraft on your rear quarter, and your life sucks because it got a shot off in the NEZ that you won't detect until it goes bulldog.
> 
> There are reports of F-22s shadowing Syrian fighters for 15 minutes as they looped over the region, getting close enough to inspect their weapon load underwing without being seen.



And with the addition of the new Carbon Fiber Stealth Mesh, the F-35 is even more stealthier than the F-22.  Even it it were equal in that regard, the F-22 can only fly one sortie a day at best.  The reason for that is the way it installs the stealth covering.  It's painted on.  If it shows wear and tear (and there is a lot of wear and tear on a fighter) then they have to ground the bird, send it to the special paint shop and it's down for the next 3 days.  The F-35 uses panels with the stealth material baked in.  When a panel shows any wear that might degrade the stealth, they change out just the panel and just the panel goes to the Fabrication Shop to be repaired and the F-35 can be turned for another mission.  The B-2 has the same problem as the F-22 as they are both 1 generation behind the F-35 for stealth.


----------



## SandSquid

DrainBamage said:


> Then there's the whole kill chain the ManOnTheStreet is ignoring with his silly bay doors argument. Detection -> tracking -> targeting -> guidance -> terminal, even if the search radar got a blip from an F-35 that had it's bay doors open for 2 seconds where does that leave the rest? To take that farther, if you're in an aircraft with your radar emitting RF an F-22/F-35 will detect you passively from much farther than you radar can see them, and get in an advantageous position for a kill shot that you never saw coming. Your radar isn't detecting the bay doors on an aircraft on your rear quarter, and your life sucks because it got a shot off in the NEZ that you won't detect until it goes bulldog.
> 
> There are reports of F-22s shadowing Syrian fighters for 15 minutes as they looped over the region, getting close enough to inspect their weapon load underwing without being seen.



I loved the one, forget if it was a 22 or a 35, but they were trying to scare off a mig coming close to a border and were struggling to do so since he couldn't see them.... 

Anyways, 

F-35 'kills' dozens of enemy fighters in AirWar live combat 'scenario'

Kinda neat story.  F-35 pilot new to his plane with only a handful of flights, telling a legacy fighter pilot with 3000 hours that he's got a bogey on him and he'd better turn or he's going to end up dead. Then killed that opposing fighter and a few more.  

The ability to see what's happening and control the battlefield is amazing.  

The pilots are amazed at how far those planes have come this year, and remember, 2 years ago they had a 20:1 kill ratio at this event.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat....3f is an incomplete machine and everyone knows but hey play ignorant if ya want and think it makes you look smart, BTW as for ground support you dont even have enough ammo for 1 gun run.....


The massive international conspiracy to lie to Manonthestreet continues to grow, apparently this plane that Manonthestreet says doesn't work and can't fly combat missions with 3F has been doing a lot more combat sorties than we realized and the great conspiracy includes awarding fake combat medals to fake pilots for flying hundreds of hours of fake combat missions. I'd love to hear Col Shoop's reaction if we told him he must be lying because we've got an expert here in these forums who has assured us this plane can't do combat. We've even got two colonels who are lying about all this, since our local expert has assured us this wasn't possible.

On its first combat deployment, the Marine Corps’ F-35 bombed both the Taliban and ISIS
_*F-35Bs flew more than 100 combat sorties *against the Taliban and ISIS while deployed aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Essex, said Lt. Col. Kyle Shoop, commander of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211. "We overall supported more than 50 days of combat flying for over 1,200 flight hours," Shoop told Task & Purpose. "We supported both Operation Freedom's Sentinel up in the Afghanistan region as well as Operation Inherent Resolve over Syria/Iraq. We employed ordnance in both theaters on numerous days," Shoop said. "Every single one of the pilots employed ordnance in theater. So, we were very busy."

The Essex quietly left San Diego in July along with the F-35B squadron and the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked. The F-35B got its first taste of combat in September against a Taliban weapons cache in Afghanistan. The aircraft that flew the mission had two names inscribed on it, Shoop said: Medal of Honor recipient Capt.Henry Talmage "Hammering Hank" Elrod and Lt .Col. Christopher "Otis" Raible, the squadron's former commander, who was killed in 2012 while repelling a Taliban attack on Camp Bastion while armed only with a pistol.

During its deployment, *the F-35B squadron flew close air support missions over both Afghanistan and Syria, Shoop said. In Syria, the aircraft also helped assess the damage done by coalition airstrikes in bad weather because the F-35's radar is far better than the F/A-18 Hornets' sensors*. Neither Syrian or Russian air defenses attempted to engage the F-35Bs during the missions against ISIS, he said. "We would see Russian airplanes airborne as well as Syrian, but everyone maintained their lines of de-confliction that were set up prior," Shoop said.

Overall, the F-35 exceeded expectations during its first deployment, Shoop said. *The squadron was able to keep 75 percent of its aircraft operational at all times, allowing it to "fly pretty much at will."* All of the F-35 pilots were awarded air medals because of the high number of combat missions they flew, said Col. Chandler Nelms, commanding officer of the 13th MEU._


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Gee didnt they declare it combat rdy yet they cant even send on a gravy run against isis


An example of why your puddle deep logic keeps coming back to bite you in the ass. You declare a plane combat ready and it doesn't just magically appear in theater of operations the next day, there are logistic and training needs that get filled in around standing up a combat squadron. When USMC had a ship ready, deployed a squadron to said ship, and had the ship in the ME they started using it in combat.


----------



## DrainBamage

More on the hangar queen:

Marine F-35s Dropped a Bunch of Bombs on ISIS During 1st Middle East Deployment

_The Marine Corps' F-35B Joint Strike Fighters led a big part of the campaign to demolish Islamic State terrorists in recent months, outpacing the combat flight hours flown by older aircraft on past deployments by 2-to-1. Members of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211 *flew 1,200 combat hours over Iraq and Syria, "making up a considerable portion of the ordnance that was dropping in theater," *said Col. Chandler Nelms, commander of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. "They were very active and did very well," he told Military.com. "As the MEU commander, anytime I see aircraft flying that much, I get concerned about what the breaking point is going to be. But there's no breaking point with these guys; they just crushed it."_

_The Marines spent more than seven months deployed to the Pacific and Middle East. The F-35B detachment was assigned to the 13th MEU, which operated from aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex. It was the first time the Marine Corps' variant of the stealth jet, which can take off and land vertically, deployed to the Middle East. __The F-35B's first combat strike was in Afghanistan in September, where the Marine pilots were flying close-air support missions, said Lt. Col. Kyle Shoop, VMFA-211's commanding officer. From there, they flew more than 50 days' worth of close-air support and defensive counter-air missions in Iraq and Syria._

_"Every day, [the pilots] were supporting over six hours of time in theater," Shoop said. The Marines were prepared for a higher-level fight had they been provoked by other actors in the region, he added. Their encounters with pilots from Russia, which is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, were minimal though, he said. __"We were aware they were airborne," Shoop said. "There are some established de-conflictions that are already set up between Russian and U.S. forces. They were all adhered to, but we were aware."_

_The F-35Bs were able to give troops on the ground more information than would have been possible in the AV-8B Harrier jump jet, which the Joint Strike Fighter will eventually replace. Its sensors are better in poor weather, Shoop said. *The Marines ended up flying the F-35B about twice as much as the Harrier flew on past deployments*, Nelms said. __"A conservative estimate is the F-35 flew 100 percent more hours on this deployment than a typical deployment for a Harrier squadron," he said. "When you consider that their readiness was 75 percent or better ... while doubling the amount of flight hours being flown, it's a real testament to the aircraft and the maintainers."_


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> More on the hangar queen:
> 
> Marine F-35s Dropped a Bunch of Bombs on ISIS During 1st Middle East Deployment
> 
> _The Marine Corps' F-35B Joint Strike Fighters led a big part of the campaign to demolish Islamic State terrorists in recent months, outpacing the combat flight hours flown by older aircraft on past deployments by 2-to-1. Members of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211 *flew 1,200 combat hours over Iraq and Syria, "making up a considerable portion of the ordnance that was dropping in theater," *said Col. Chandler Nelms, commander of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. "They were very active and did very well," he told Military.com. "As the MEU commander, anytime I see aircraft flying that much, I get concerned about what the breaking point is going to be. But there's no breaking point with these guys; they just crushed it."_
> 
> _The Marines spent more than seven months deployed to the Pacific and Middle East. The F-35B detachment was assigned to the 13th MEU, which operated from aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex. It was the first time the Marine Corps' variant of the stealth jet, which can take off and land vertically, deployed to the Middle East. __The F-35B's first combat strike was in Afghanistan in September, where the Marine pilots were flying close-air support missions, said Lt. Col. Kyle Shoop, VMFA-211's commanding officer. From there, they flew more than 50 days' worth of close-air support and defensive counter-air missions in Iraq and Syria._
> 
> _"Every day, [the pilots] were supporting over six hours of time in theater," Shoop said. The Marines were prepared for a higher-level fight had they been provoked by other actors in the region, he added. Their encounters with pilots from Russia, which is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, were minimal though, he said. __"We were aware they were airborne," Shoop said. "There are some established de-conflictions that are already set up between Russian and U.S. forces. They were all adhered to, but we were aware."_
> 
> _The F-35Bs were able to give troops on the ground more information than would have been possible in the AV-8B Harrier jump jet, which the Joint Strike Fighter will eventually replace. Its sensors are better in poor weather, Shoop said. *The Marines ended up flying the F-35B about twice as much as the Harrier flew on past deployments*, Nelms said. __"A conservative estimate is the F-35 flew 100 percent more hours on this deployment than a typical deployment for a Harrier squadron," he said. "When you consider that their readiness was 75 percent or better ... while doubling the amount of flight hours being flown, it's a real testament to the aircraft and the maintainers."_



75% is pretty damned good for any combat bird.  And that means the F-35B was flying multiple mission per day.  The A could have done a bit better but you dance with the gal that brung ya.  And the F-35B is more complicated than the A so I would say that better than a 75% sortie rate speaks volumes.  That's better than the F-18, F-22 and F-16.  It's right up there with the F-15.


----------



## DrainBamage

Info on block 4 upgrade here: Keeping the F-35 Ahead of the Bad Guys

Summary:
- Starting in April 2019, then continuing 6 month cycles
- 80% software, built on TR3 baseline which can be completed for a squadron in a couple days
- Radar and electro-optical upgrades
- Electronic attack upgrades
- Sensor upgrades are focused on expansion of maritime capabilities
- Various weapons for foreign partners including ASRAAM, Meteor, Naval Strike Missile, and SOM
- SDB2 for leading edge anti-armor capability
- JSOW-C1 for USN's internally carried antiship weapon

SBD2 is biggest capability leap here IMO. F-35 can carry 8 internally so a flight of four F-35s could take out up to 32 main battle tanks from standoff range in contested airspace. Will also reduce need to carry wing mounted ordnance in CAS role.


----------



## DrainBamage

and US Navy finally goes IOC....

F-35C Achieves Initial Operational Capability
SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The Commander, Naval Air Forces and the U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation jointly announced that the aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C Lightning II, met all requirements and achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC). The Feb. 28 announcement comes shortly after the Department of the Navy’s first F-35C squadron, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 147, completed aircraft carrier qualifications aboard USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and received Safe-For-Flight Operations Certification. 

In order to declare IOC, the first operational squadron must be properly manned, trained and equipped to conduct assigned missions in support of fleet operations. This includes having 10 Block 3F, F-35C aircraft, requisite spare parts, support equipment, tools, technical publications, training programs and a functional Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS). Additionally, the ship that supports the first squadron must possess the proper infrastructure, qualifications and certifications. Lastly, the Joint Program Office, industry, and Naval Aviation must demonstrate that all procedures, processes and policies are in place to sustain operations.

“The F-35C is ready for operations, ready for combat and ready to win,” said Commander Naval Air Forces, Vice Admiral DeWolfe Miller. “We are adding an incredible weapon system into the arsenal of our Carrier Strike Groups that significantly enhances the capability of the joint force.”


----------



## DrainBamage

Given all three variants are now in service, hundreds of hours of combat missions in the Middle East, costs continue to drop, reliability rates going up, dominance in exercises, and production rates expanding every year, let's tip our hats to *Manonthestreet *for some of his wonderful wisdom in this thread










Manonthestreet said:


> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap


Nope, it isn't getting shitcanned they will build over 100 more in 2019.



Manonthestreet said:


> Instead we're busy playing a very expensive catch-up game in reverse, to the point of building entire capital ships that cannot even exchange data with let alone operate the very fighter aircraft they were specifically designed for!


With Navy going IOC and USMC using F-35Bs off amphibs you aren't using the word "operate" correctly.



Manonthestreet said:


> They are going to have to retro all you small carriers or just convert them to drone and choppers.. Cost for this program is going to sink the navy by itself


Carriers are being converted , F-35s are flying off them, and US Navy has not sunk by itself.



Manonthestreet said:


> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value


According to a USMC Colonel they have dropped a large share of the ordnance in the Middle East. That is not zero capability.



Manonthestreet said:


> Wow...can you imagine how quickly your air wing would be inoperable under real conditions.....thing might only be good for pretty pictures and wasting money.


75% in combat operations for F-35B, they were able to get twice as many hours as they could with Harriers.



Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 days are numbered







They are on scheduled to produce 130 in 2019.






Manonthestreet... never go full retard...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Given all three variants are now in service, hundreds of hours of combat missions in the Middle East, costs continue to drop, reliability rates going up, dominance in exercises, and production rates expanding every year, let's tip our hats to *Manonthestreet *for some of his wonderful wisdom in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pork will kill it......In 18 months how many more problems will be Id'd.....At current rate could be half dozen.....After fix is found then you have to mod all production planes which means what.....Another 12 to 24 months......By that time new design may be rdy to prototype.....f-35 is entering stopgap twilight to be ashcanned asap
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it isn't getting shitcanned they will build over 100 more in 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead we're busy playing a very expensive catch-up game in reverse, to the point of building entire capital ships that cannot even exchange data with let alone operate the very fighter aircraft they were specifically designed for!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With Navy going IOC and USMC using F-35Bs off amphibs you aren't using the word "operate" correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are going to have to retro all you small carriers or just convert them to drone and choppers.. Cost for this program is going to sink the navy by itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carriers are being converted , F-35s are flying off them, and US Navy has not sunk by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to a USMC Colonel they have dropped a large share of the ordnance in the Middle East. That is not zero capability.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...can you imagine how quickly your air wing would be inoperable under real conditions.....thing might only be good for pretty pictures and wasting money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 75% in combat operations for F-35B, they were able to get twice as many hours as they could with Harriers.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 days are numbered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are on scheduled to produce 130 in 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet... never go full retard...
Click to expand...


Glad the C model is finally going IOC.  The old F-18C/Ds are just plain wore out and parts are getting hard to come by.  If they can keep the 75% sortie rate going on the C like the B or higher, that means the C will be one of the highest sortie rate birds in the inventory.  The Navy won't have to depend on the few B models the Marines have to get their Naval Weapons out to some real ridiculous ranges.  And they can take some of the weight off the F-18Gs.  Makes bagging a Naval Ship a lot harder when the weapon gets picked up at 1000 miles by the C.  And no, boyobreath, the C doesn't have to be out 1000 miles to see 1000 miles and direct fire.  Can wait to see what the C model does during a Top Gun.  It should be as impressive as the As and Bs that have been involved in the Red Flags.


----------



## DrainBamage

The F-35 program death spiral that Manonthestreet confidently predicted continues, the Singapore decision is now official with initial purchase request for four F-35s with option for 8 more.

Interesting = sounds like they might be buying the Bee.

Singapore plans to buy four F-35 jets with option for eight more | Reuters
Ng added it was an “opportune time” for Singapore to put in the request because the price of F-35s - which ranges from $90 million to $115 million - has been steadily falling amid high demand from the United States and ten other countries, including Britain, Italy, Australia, Japan and South Korea. A Lockheed executive told Reuters a year earlier that talks with Singapore had centered on the F-35B version short take-off and landing variant that is “a nice fit for a smaller land-constrained environment”. Lockheed did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. Singapore’s fleet of around 60 F-16 jets, which first entered service in 1998, will be retired soon after 2030.


----------



## Manonthestreet

How bad is the F-35's computerized maintenance system, ALIS? So bad the plane may be better off without it. 
Air Force Tries To Fix F-35’s ALIS — From A Big, Broken Box To the Cloud


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> How bad is the F-35's computerized maintenance system, ALIS? So bad the plane may be better off without it.
> Air Force Tries To Fix F-35’s ALIS — From A Big, Broken Box To the Cloud



From your own cite......

_*To be fair, Roper did say that much of the functional software in ALIS — the stuff that does specific tasks — works well, so they shouldn’t need to start from scratch. But the Mad Hatter team needs to repackage that still-usable code into something military maintainers can actually use to do their jobs, instead of something that makes their jobs much harder
*_
If Alic isn't working, the other option is the tried and true forms.  And that is as accurate and is as almost as old as flight itself.  But Alic does work.  They are trying to make it smaller.  And anytime you make something smaller on a F-35 you made room for new weapon systems.  Thank you for showing the ways that the F-35 is being made even better.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Still a boondoggle after all these years F-15x to rescue ...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Still a boondoggle after all these years F-15x to rescue ...



The F-15X sits quietly in the background waiting for the F-35 to tell him when and where to launch.  With all that hardware hanging off him (22 missiles and bombs) his radar signature is more like the Chrysler Building.  And the F-35 can do this job without even letting the enemy know he's there.  When you launch an Air To Air missile at 100 miles using Radar, you have almost no chance of hitting your target since there will be a miriad of things that can go wrong and your enemy has quite a warning time.  But when you launch the missile at 100 miles with NO radar and it's passively guided in the only real warning will be your close IR detectors and visual giving you only a couple of seconds time to react.  The F-15X can communicate with the F-35 and the F-22 this same way.  The F-15C, F-16 and F-18 can only communicate with the F-35.  

The only thing the F-15X is rescuing is is the F-15 program itself which is still flying upgraded 1970 series F-15As which should have been taken out of inventory decades ago.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F35 low slow ...not invisible as claimed.....blow torch onits tail will give it away ..     great propaganda though


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F35 low slow ...not invisible as claimed.....blow torch onits tail will give it away ..     great propaganda though



You are right if you are within 35 miles of it.  If you aren't then your IR is worthless.  And the F-35 is already tracking you at 90 to 100 miles and can come within range to fire even an IR missile that you won't pickup until it enters that 35 miles.  Hate to break it to you but the F-35 even makes a F-22 look like it's standing out like a sore thumb and the F-22 can sneak up on just about anything out there.  The idea isn't to have to turn, jinx and dive, the idea is to make the other guy have to turn, jinx and dive.  

Your Russian and Chinese Propaganda is noted, comrade.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Fine propo.....in a real war against major powers you won't have time to maintain all that stealth coating due to time it takes to apply ....good luck ....let me know when it does something verifiable besides generate propo.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Fine propo.....in a real war against major powers you won't have time to maintain all that stealth coating due to time it takes to apply ....good luck ....let me know when it does something verifiable besides generate propo.



The F-22 uses Stealth Coating and when it mars the whole bird has to head for the Paint Shop for the next 3 days.  The F-35 has it baked in where it's tougher.  Plus, when one of the panels does show wear, they change out just the panel and send just the panel to the repair facility.  Keep hammering and you keep looking like a complete idjit.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F35 low slow ...not invisible as claimed.....blow torch onits tail will give it away ..     great propaganda though


Like anyone who's going through the motions at this point but knows they cannot logically argue their point, I know you'll ignore these questions but I'll ask anyway:

1. Which flies faster, a combat loaded F-35 or F-16?
2. Which flies higher, a combat loaded F-35 or F-16?
3. Who claimed it was invisible?
4. How does it's IR signature compare to other aircraft?

In fact I'll go ahead and answer for you.
1. F-35
2. F-35
3. Nobody
4. Unknown

Thanks for playing, we enjoy shoving every post you've made in this thread back down your throat, you are the true definition of village idiot around here.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Still a boondoggle after all these years F-15x to rescue ...


Yeah we know, you were the one quoting F-22 kill ratios as gospel in this very thread a few years ago, all based on Red Flag performance. F-35 does the same and suddenly Red Flag doesn't count, it's all propaganda, all these pilots from different services and countries are lying, etc.


----------



## SandSquid

Manonthestreet said:


> Fine propo.....in a real war against major powers you won't have time to maintain all that stealth coating due to time it takes to apply ....good luck ....let me know when it does something verifiable besides generate propo.



Dude. You just got called out for lying.  Either purposefully or out of ignorance I am not sure which.

And now you throw out another lie right behind that blindly.

I think it would be best if you first chose to educate yourself on the topic at hand, and then, maybe, make a decision to return with educated comments rather than ignorantly throwing darts at a board blindly and hoping one sticks.


----------



## DrainBamage

What ManOnTheStreet is engaged in is stubbornly sticking to his original argument despite overwhelming evidence that has build over the ensuing years clearly proving he was wrong. He's one of those folks who's self-esteem is so low he would rather look more and more foolish by lying, ignoring information that isn't convenient, and pretending not to see responses that paint him into a corner just so the man-child doesn't have admit to himself that he was wrong about something.

Even some of the sources he used as gospel in this thread years ago ("I have the most links" he would say) have come around and now write content pointing out the strengths of the airplane, yet ManOnTheStreet continue slogging forward looking more like a clown every page of this thread.

It's both sad and fascinating to witness.


----------



## Manonthestreet

SandSquid said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine propo.....in a real war against major powers you won't have time to maintain all that stealth coating due to time it takes to apply ....good luck ....let me know when it does something verifiable besides generate propo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You just got called out for lying.  Either purposefully or out of ignorance I am not sure which.
> 
> And now you throw out another lie right behind that blindly.
> 
> I think it would be best if you first chose to educate yourself on the topic at hand, and then, maybe, make a decision to return with educated comments rather than ignorantly throwing darts at a board blindly and hoping one sticks.
Click to expand...


ok 
list any combat accomplishments or magic shootdowns,,,,,Why do you think they want F-15s and F18s.....cause they know it cant do  all of what was claimed, They wont say that,,,,,but if they were confident in it this wouldn't be happening,


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a boondoggle after all these years F-15x to rescue ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we know, you were the one quoting F-22 kill ratios as gospel in this very thread a few years ago, all based on Red Flag performance. F-35 does the same and suddenly Red Flag doesn't count, it's all propaganda, all these pilots from different services and countries are lying, etc.
Click to expand...

F-35 cant do the same cause its not as stealthy....cant fly as high and has a blowtorch tail...…...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine propo.....in a real war against major powers you won't have time to maintain all that stealth coating due to time it takes to apply ....good luck ....let me know when it does something verifiable besides generate propo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You just got called out for lying.  Either purposefully or out of ignorance I am not sure which.
> 
> And now you throw out another lie right behind that blindly.
> 
> I think it would be best if you first chose to educate yourself on the topic at hand, and then, maybe, make a decision to return with educated comments rather than ignorantly throwing darts at a board blindly and hoping one sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok
> list any combat accomplishments or magic shootdowns,,,,,Why do you think they want F-15s and F18s.....cause they know it cant do  all of what was claimed, They wont say that,,,,,but if they were confident in it this wouldn't be happening,
Click to expand...


The B is used in Combat in the Middle East on a Daily Basis.  It's so routine that it doesn't even rate a news byline anymore.  The As and Bs are in the East scaring the hell out of everyone.  The Chinese don't know if thye are there or not in their contested airspace.  NK can't seem to track them near their borders.  If nothing else, they are keeping the lid on everything.  If either NK or the Chinese makes a opportunity "Mistake" chances are either a F-22 or a F-35 will see it and react to it.  Both the F-22 and the F-35 have seen combat and have performed well, In fact, the F-35 flies multiple mission per day which the F-22 can't.  And if you believe the F-35 is underpowered, the F-35A can be in combat trim and accelerate straight up without after burner.  It can go from zero energy to straight up flight with no problems with afterburner in combat trim.  I don't know of any fighter than can do that other than the F-35A.  I wonder what the top speed really is on the A.  I can see the B limited to 1.6+ with all that extra weight.  I can see the C limited to that as well with all that extra wing drag and extra weight.  But I wonder what the hotrod A can do.  I have a feeling it's closer to the F-16 than not on top speed and can probably reach it much faster.  But it's going to be a lot of years before us Sillyvillians will ever know that.  

They didn't find any new uses for the F-15.  The F-15C and D are just old, really old and need to be replaced.  They are replacing them on a one for one basis with the new X.  Same missions.  The fact they are working with the F-22 and F-35 just like the C, D and E is a huge plus carrying all that extra weapons.  It's just a damned good idea that makes the combination of the F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 even more deadly.  And it releases some of the F-35s to work with other weapons systems like Naval and Ground Systems for over the Horizon.  Imagine having a naval missile that is limited to only about 250 miles due the curvature of the earth for their radar getting help from the F-35 getting it out to over 500 miles.  Same goes for the A helping with the Ground Installations.  The F-15X isn't just working with the F-35.  It's also working with the F-22 making those few into many.  The F-15X is becoming the Missile Truck that they envisioned the B-1 becoming.  The B-1 was progged to carry 36 but would have been downright expensive and couldn't have defended itself.  The F-15X carries 22 at a fraction of the cost and can defend itself.  This is probably one of the most brilliant ideas that the Military has come up with yet and they needed a win.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a boondoggle after all these years F-15x to rescue ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we know, you were the one quoting F-22 kill ratios as gospel in this very thread a few years ago, all based on Red Flag performance. F-35 does the same and suddenly Red Flag doesn't count, it's all propaganda, all these pilots from different services and countries are lying, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F-35 cant do the same cause its not as stealthy....cant fly as high and has a blowtorch tail...…...
Click to expand...


Once again, you are letting your mouth run out your tail again.  Since they incorporated the Stealth Mesh, it's now more stealthy than the F-22.  It's now as stealthy as the B-2.  It went from the signature of a BB to that of a mosquito.  And the A can fly in excess of 50K.  How much?  They ain't saying.   The 50K+ and Mach 1.6+ is for the B model.  It doesn't apply to the A which is lighter and more powerful.  I hope any enemy that flies against it think like you do.  It's going to be suicidal.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> And it releases some of the F-35s to work with other weapons systems like Naval and Ground Systems for over the Horizon.  Imagine having a naval missile that is limited to only about 250 miles due the curvature of the earth for their radar getting help from the F-35 getting it out to over 500 miles.



Just to clarify.  The curvature of the earth doesn't impact missile range, that's a function of the physical properties of the missile.  The ability to provide targeting data over the RADAR horizon is a function of altitude.  Roughly speaking at 100 feet, the RADAR Horizon is about 10 miles.  Targeting solutions for shipboard systems being provided by aircraft isn't a new idea, it's been around for years.

The E-2 Hawkeye isn't pretty, isn't fast, and is altitude limited because of it's turbo prop's (between 25K-30K depending on fuel load).  Station a Hawkeye about 150-200 miles from the ship and with it's 250 mile range you have 400-450 miles and working with fighters in a CAP profile you can extend that even further.  Take an F-35 by themselves out to 500 miles and you loose communications unless it's being routed via SATCOM because the radios on the F-35 are going to run into the Radio Horizon limits of VHF/UHF communications system which can be limited based on radio power output/sensitivity as well as curvature.  For two aircraft communicating usually it  will be power over curvature that can be the limiting factor.

Not knocking the F-35 at all, and it's altitude/range can absolutely help extend the range of ship-based missile systems.  Just say'n that their capabilities will be extended through the support and command and control of their Navy's ugly duckling eye in the sky.

It's all about integrated threat management and the F-35 will be part of an overall system.
.
.
.
.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it releases some of the F-35s to work with other weapons systems like Naval and Ground Systems for over the Horizon.  Imagine having a naval missile that is limited to only about 250 miles due the curvature of the earth for their radar getting help from the F-35 getting it out to over 500 miles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify.  The curvature of the earth doesn't impact missile range, that's a function of the physical properties of the missile.  The ability to provide targeting data over the RADAR horizon is a function of altitude.  Roughly speaking at 100 feet, the RADAR Horizon is about 10 miles.  Targeting solutions for shipboard systems being provided by aircraft isn't a new idea, it's been around for years.
> 
> The E-2 Hawkeye isn't pretty, isn't fast, and is altitude limited because of it's turbo prop's (between 25K-30K depending on fuel load).  Station a Hawkeye about 150-200 miles from the ship and with it's 250 mile range you have 400-450 miles and working with fighters in a CAP profile you can extend that even further.  Take an F-35 by themselves out to 500 miles and you loose communications unless it's being routed via SATCOM because the radios on the F-35 are going to run into the Radio Horizon limits of VHF/UHF communications system which can be limited based on radio power output/sensitivity as well as curvature.  For two aircraft communicating usually it  will be power over curvature that can be the limiting factor.
> 
> Not knocking the F-35 at all, and it's altitude/range can absolutely help extend the range of ship-based missile systems.  Just say'n that their capabilities will be extended through the support and command and control of their Navy's ugly duckling eye in the sky.
> 
> It's all about integrated threat management and the F-35 will be part of an overall system.
> .
> .
> .
> .>>>>
Click to expand...


Radar has a range limit due to the curvature of the earth.  It will be much further than line of sight but it's still affected.  It's normally about 240 miles give or take.  Ships have that problem when targeting.  The Navy needs those eyes in the sky in order to exceed that range even if it's an E-2 or an EA-18G.  The problem is, both of those are a bit vulnerable in comparison to the F-35B.

Sorry, you can't change Physics to suit yourself.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> Radar has a range limit due to the curvature of the earth.  It will be much further than line of sight but it's still affected.  It's normally about 240 miles give or take.  Ships have that problem when targeting.  The Navy needs those eyes in the sky in order to exceed that range even if it's an E-2 or an EA-18G.  The problem is, both of those are a bit vulnerable in comparison to the F-35B.
> 
> Sorry, you can't change Physics to suit yourself.



:Scratching Head: 

What physics did I change to suit myself.

I noted that RADAR Horizon is a function of altitude.  At about 100 feet above sea level RADAR Horizon is about 10 miles.  At altitude we could "see" much farther.  Our RADAR Horizon at altitude was about 250 miles for surface targets.  For air-to-air targets (at altitude) curvature was less of a factor that PRF and sensitivity of the receiver.

.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radar has a range limit due to the curvature of the earth.  It will be much further than line of sight but it's still affected.  It's normally about 240 miles give or take.  Ships have that problem when targeting.  The Navy needs those eyes in the sky in order to exceed that range even if it's an E-2 or an EA-18G.  The problem is, both of those are a bit vulnerable in comparison to the F-35B.
> 
> Sorry, you can't change Physics to suit yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :Scratching Head:
> 
> What physics did I change to suit myself.
> 
> I noted that RADAR Horizon is a function of altitude.  At about 100 feet above sea level RADAR Horizon is about 10 miles.  At altitude we could "see" much farther.  Our RADAR Horizon at altitude was about 250 miles for surface targets.  For air-to-air targets (at altitude) curvature was less of a factor that PRF and sensitivity of the receiver.
> 
> .>>>>
Click to expand...


You should have said that in the first place instead of  just saying that I was wrong.  In reality, I was right and you just admitted it.  A Guided Missiles range is equal to the affective range of the Radar that guides it unless it is using internal radar or guidance.  Using the F-35 for this mission isn't something new.  The E-2 annd EA-18 has been used for this for quite some time.  But the old ICUUCMe comes into play.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Daryl Hunt said:


> You should have said that in the first place instead of  just saying that I was wrong.  In reality, I was right and you just admitted it.  A Guided Missiles range is equal to the affective range of the Radar that guides it unless it is using internal radar or guidance.  Using the F-35 for this mission isn't something new.  The E-2 annd EA-18 has been used for this for quite some time.  But the old ICUUCMe comes into play.



Go back and read what I said without the hackles being up.

I clarified that there is a difference between how far a missile can fly and the ability to develop targeting information from ship based RADARS due to curvature.  That aircraft provide over the horizon targeting because of altitude.  Basically agreeing with what you wrote.
.
.
.
.>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should have said that in the first place instead of  just saying that I was wrong.  In reality, I was right and you just admitted it.  A Guided Missiles range is equal to the affective range of the Radar that guides it unless it is using internal radar or guidance.  Using the F-35 for this mission isn't something new.  The E-2 annd EA-18 has been used for this for quite some time.  But the old ICUUCMe comes into play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read what I said without the hackles being up.
> 
> I clarified that there is a difference between how far a missile can fly and the ability to develop targeting information from ship based RADARS due to curvature.  That aircraft provide over the horizon targeting because of altitude.  Basically agreeing with what you wrote.
> .
> .
> .
> .>>>>
Click to expand...


Nuff said.  We shouldn't be fighting in front of the child.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WorldWatcher said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should have said that in the first place instead of  just saying that I was wrong.  In reality, I was right and you just admitted it.  A Guided Missiles range is equal to the affective range of the Radar that guides it unless it is using internal radar or guidance.  Using the F-35 for this mission isn't something new.  The E-2 annd EA-18 has been used for this for quite some time.  But the old ICUUCMe comes into play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read what I said without the hackles being up.
> 
> I clarified that there is a difference between how far a missile can fly and the ability to develop targeting information from ship based RADARS due to curvature.  That aircraft provide over the horizon targeting because of altitude.  Basically agreeing with what you wrote.
> .
> .
> .
> .>>>>
Click to expand...


You have to admit, using an E-2, EA-6 or an EA-18G to play chicken with against a ships radar takes some real kinds of special cojones.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> ok
> list any combat accomplishments or magic shootdowns,,,,,


Perfect example of what we were talking about with you, every post is disingenuous like this.

Earlier in this thread you were praising the F-22, which at that time had zero combat accomplishments and definitely no magic shootdowns (whatever that means), yet here for the F-35 which you know full well has been flying combat missions in the Middle East you're demanding a lit of combat accomplishments as some new goalpost that must be crossed for the aircraft to be judged worthy.



Manonthestreet said:


> Why do you think they want F-15s and F18s.....cause they know it cant do  all of what was claimed, They wont say that,,,,,but if they were confident in it this wouldn't be happening,


Procurement issues related to F-35 running behind schedule, which is something entirely different then it can't do all of what was claimed.

If you're confident in what you're saying why don't you explain exactly what an F-18 can do that an F-35 cannot do? We all know you won't answer because you never stick around to defend your bullshit, with every post you further exemplify why you've become the laughing stock of this forum.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 cant do the same cause its not as stealthy....cant fly as high and has a blowtorch tail...…...


You prove my point about your logical disconnect.

1. You praised F-22's dominace, with your only evidence of it's performance in exercises.

2. F-35 has same gaudy kill ratios in exercises, with pilots from various services and different countries saying it dominates because it can't be seen... and your conclusion is that it can't dominate and isn't stealthy.

This is the logic chain of someone thinking with fanboyish emotion rather than common sense, you're like some college football fan screaming themselves hoarse at the TV in a bar rooting for the planes you like and cursing the planes you hate. Grow up.

*also I'd not you've been asked how the "blowtorch tail" compares in heat signature to other fighters at least a dozen times in this thread whenever you make the comment, and you have yet to provide any response. Reason = you have no idea what the IR signature of an F-35's tail is you're just continuing to parrot something you read in a blog somewhere.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 is no F-22....not even close. Think Skepticism is warranted.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 is no F-22....not even close. Think Skepticism is warranted.


Please read again, I didn't ask whether F-35 is an F-22 so you're either having reading comprehension issues of (more likely) dodging the same questions. I'll try again, and I know you'll avoid answering again but it just serves to drive home the point about how you operate in here.

1. What can an F-18 do better than an F-35?
2. Did F-22 have combat experience when you were championing it a few years ago in this thread?
3. How does heat signature of F-35 compare to other aircraft?
4. Has F-35 dominated in Red Flag, just like F-22 has?
5. Has F-35 been performing hundreds of hours of combat missions dropping ordnance in Middle East?
6. Why do you say an F-35 isn't stealthy when combat pilots say it's big advantage has been you can't see it?

Start the crickets chirping for the child...


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 cant do the same cause its not as stealthy.


Here is from latest Red Flag 2019 that wrapped up a couple months, source = Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag

During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities. “I’ve never seen anything like it before.” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. *He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.’” *The young pilot then “killed” the enemy aircraft and had three more kills in the hour-long mission. “Even in this extremely challenging environment, the F-35 didn’t have many difficulties doing its job,” Wood said. ‘That’s a testament to the pilot’s training and the capabilities of the jet.”

So for you to continue to press on year after year claiming F-35 isn't stealthy you must believe that above is a complete fabrication. This guy is lying. There were also dozens of folks lying in previous Red Flag. Everyone is a liar year after year about F-35 being stealthy, because Manonthestreet who's never sat in the cockpit of an aircraft in his life keeps saying it isn't stealthy and can't fight. Norwegians are lying, Brits are lying, Marines are lying, everyone is in on the giant conspiracy.

It takes a colossal suspension of reality for you to keep this up Manonthestreet, like I said it's both sad and fascinating to see at the same time.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35 has hottest engine in fleet.....F18 will do ground support better simply cause it carries more.. Fact I would be surprised if an F-35 is ever tasked to do it simply because of cost differential in repairs. One reason I believe they are adding F-15s plus we dont have evough high altitude Fighters. F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 is no F-22....not even close. Think Skepticism is warranted.



If we using stealth as a yardstick, the F-35A is better than the F-22 since it has a smaller stealth footprint.  That means the F-35 will see the F-22 first and get first shots.  What we are exporting ain't what we are flying in the US in the form of the F-35A and C. I don't know when they changed from the solid baked panels to the mesh panels but that's the way the US F-35s are made today.  Why that is better, I don't know and they ain't tellin'.

The F-35A can now  escort the B-2 all the way in and the F-22 can't.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 has hottest engine in fleet.....F18 will do ground support better simply cause it carries more.. Fact I would be surprised if an F-35 is ever tasked to do it simply because of cost differential in repairs. One reason I believe they are adding F-15s plus we dont have evough high altitude Fighters. F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18



And exactly what is the RCS of the F-35A since they went to the Carbon Fiber Stealth Mesh?  It's listed as the size of a mosquito from all angles now.  As for tailpipe heat, it can go to zero energy and  climb straight up without going afterburner.  Try that with your F-18, F-15 or even your F-22.  If you have to go afterburner then your heat signature goes right out the window.  Plus, your Russian Buddies have to be within about 35 miles for their IR detectors to work.  They start dodging missiles from the F-35 and F-22 long before that.  And both the F-22 and F-35 will be using passive guidance so they will be very hard to pickup and impossible to target.  Now, add the F-15X throwing Amramms into the mix without using their own radar as well with the F-35 guiding them in passively and your comrades are doing a whole lot more jinxing, diving, climbing, banking and turning and running.  All your russian buddies know is that their buddies are blowing up and they are only getting a few seconds warning on their missile detectors.  

So what if the F-35 has a not tailpipe in afterburner.  It doesn't matter if it can outperform most fighters without using afterburner.  It has a way over 1 to 1 thrust to weight factor now without afterburner in combat trim.  

A F-35A cost per hour of operation is now at 13,000 bucks.  A F-16 is sitting right at 16,000.  The cost of the F-16 remains the same but the F-35A has gone down dramatically every year since it was put into operational service.  It started out at about 40K it's first year in 2014 before it went operational.  In 2015, when it went operations, it dropped because the spare parts and ground support was available.  But for 2018, it's all the way down to under 14K making it one of the most cost effective fighters in the world.  And the price this year will be right around 80Mil making it a real deal compared to most of the  4th gen fighters with capabilities not even close to the F-35A.  Britain was going to buy only the F-35B but when they looked at the perfomance and savings of the A model, the converted about half of the orders to the A model.  

Don't kid yourself, the A model is one mean little SOB and it operates on the cheap, flies multiple missions per day and is harder than hell to see.  If you want to use your IR detectors, you need to get close, real close and be already under attack from it.  And it's been proven that there are only a couple or three fighters that can dogfight with an A in combat trim and either equal it  or exceed it.  And that only includes the SU-35, F-22 and the F-5.  That's pretty good company to be in, don't you think?  It's one thing to test it where it's limited to only 6.5 Gees and another when it's set to 9+ Gees like the A is now.  Add the Aim-9X and the helmet aimed off bore to that as well and even the SU-35 and the F-22 means that no one leaves the area alive.

If you question that I included the F-5, there is one model of the F-5 that can use the Aim-9X and the offbore helmet aiming sights and uses AESA radar.  During the next Top Gun, the Navy will flying against that little motorscooter as agressors.  And if you think a F-5 isn't one bad little MOF, it's  been giving Red Flag Air Force fighters like the F-16, F-15 and even the F-22 fits (way back to the F-4) fits for decades.  There is a good reason the Marines has all but said they would give a left nut to have a fleet of them.  But it appears they have been satisfied with their F-35Bs instead.  Not bad for a 3rd gen aircraft.  Of course, the F-18 owes it's heritage to the F-5 lock stock and barrel.

What makes the F-35A so sought after?  Performance, Cost, Cost per hour of operations, ease of maintenance, availability.  Right now, they can't make enough of them.  It sounds like more plants are going to have to be opened.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 cant do the same cause its not as stealthy....cant fly as high and has a blowtorch tail...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You prove my point about your logical disconnect.
> 
> 1. You praised F-22's dominace, with your only evidence of it's performance in exercises.
> 
> 2. F-35 has same gaudy kill ratios in exercises, with pilots from various services and different countries saying it dominates because it can't be seen... and your conclusion is that it can't dominate and isn't stealthy.
> 
> This is the logic chain of someone thinking with fanboyish emotion rather than common sense, you're like some college football fan screaming themselves hoarse at the TV in a bar rooting for the planes you like and cursing the planes you hate. Grow up.
> 
> *also I'd not you've been asked how the "blowtorch tail" compares in heat signature to other fighters at least a dozen times in this thread whenever you make the comment, and you have yet to provide any response. Reason = you have no idea what the IR signature of an F-35's tail is you're just continuing to parrot something you read in a blog somewhere.
Click to expand...


I already pointed out that the new engines in the US A models have a better than a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio without afterburner.  It can go from zero energy to straight up acceleration without afterburner.  I don't know of any other Jet Fighter that can do that.  It ends up having a cooler tailpipe doing high risk maneuvers than the other fighters that needs to use their afterburners to do the same maneuvers.  In order for the other fighters to get that kind of performance, they are going to have to dump fuel and get rid of all their weapons.  The F-35A does it carrying 50% fuel and all 6 missiles without afterburner.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 has hottest engine in flee


According to who? You've made this claim before but never provided a source despite being asked about a dozen times including about 2 posts ago. I suspect you won't answer because your source is yourself.




Manonthestreet said:


> F18 will do ground support better simply cause it carries more..


This isn't true at all, do your research dude.
F-18 = 13,700 lbs
F-35 = 18,000 lbs
aIn any environment an F-18 can operate in with external stores an F-35 can do the same, it's would still be stealthier and have far better situational awareness.




Manonthestreet said:


> Fighters. F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18


Okay, nobody releases official RCS numbers but there are lots of RCS estimates floating around, below is from GlobalSecurity.org. Do you have a different source, or are you seriously so far gone that you consider an F-35 having RCS that is 1/200th the size of F-18 is best described as "marginally smaller".







Who told you F-35 is only marginally smaller RCS than F-18? That's an idiotic statement.


----------



## DrainBamage

> 1. What can an F-18 do better than an F-35?
> 2. Did F-22 have combat experience when you were championing it a few years ago in this thread?
> 3. How does heat signature of F-35 compare to other aircraft?
> 4. Has F-35 dominated in Red Flag, just like F-22 has?
> 5. Has F-35 been performing hundreds of hours of combat missions dropping ordnance in Middle East?
> 6. Why do you say an F-35 isn't stealthy when combat pilots say it's big advantage has been you can't see it?
> 
> Start the crickets chirping for the child...


So to keep track of what Manonthestreet has been able to sputter in response:

1. He answers ground support, based on false premise that F-18 can carry more ordnance. F-35 can carry more, has better situational awareness, wider combat radius.
2. He ignores
3. He ignores, just repeats unfounded claim it's hot while again refusing to provide a source or comparison to other aircraft.
4. He ignores
5. He ignores
6. He ignores

So again ManOnTheStreet shows he can make false statements but isn't much for standing up to scrutiny.


----------



## DrainBamage

Found it:


Manonthestreet said:


> Love the F-22...it works and has 15-1 kill ratio



That's right, Manonthestreet is using F-22 Red Flag kill ratios to point out how well it works, while then ignoring similar from F-35 and demanding to know it's actual combat record. Never go full retard.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 is no F-22....not even close. Think Skepticism is warranted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we using stealth as a yardstick, the F-35A is better than the F-22 since it has a smaller stealth footprint.  That means the F-35 will see the F-22 first and get first shots.  What we are exporting ain't what we are flying in the US in the form of the F-35A and C. I don't know when they changed from the solid baked panels to the mesh panels but that's the way the US F-35s are made today.  Why that is better, I don't know and they ain't tellin'.
> 
> The F-35A can now  escort the B-2 all the way in and the F-22 can't.
Click to expand...

Not even ...don't know where you got that ...F22 rcs much smaller than f35


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Not even ...don't know where you got that ...F22 rcs much smaller than f35


So show us? You say a lot of stuff but sure are scant on actual sources for your bullshit, clearly your favorite source is yourself.

You say F-35 RCS is only marginally smaller than F-18, I find that to be absurd and challenge you to support it with facts. I know you won't, but we'll let that be another example of you shitting a lot of hot hair without having any ability to back any of it up.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F35 doesn't have range to escort any long range platform ....why Navy has alrdy started looking for it's replacement ....even before it's in the fleet in any numbers ...damning indictment


----------



## Manonthestreet

You're using legacy hornet rcs ...


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> You're using legacy hornet rcs ...


You're not using any. You get asked for the source for your claims dozens of times, and apparently your only source is you.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Great defense bud.....accuse someone of bad info while providing info on plane being phased out if not gone alrdy


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> why Navy has alrdy started looking for it's replacement ....even before it's in the fleet in any numbers ...damning indictment


This is so naive it's almost cute.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Great defense bud.....accuse someone of bad info while providing info on plane being phased out if not gone alrdy


Your source of F-35 RCS? (crickets chirp)
Your source of F-35 engine heat? (crickets chirp)

Clearly you just make things up as you go along and have zero actual factual basis for what you say.

All you have to do to prove everyone wrong and you right is show us this RCS data you keep talking about, but you can't. It's quite telling.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 is no F-22....not even close. Think Skepticism is warranted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we using stealth as a yardstick, the F-35A is better than the F-22 since it has a smaller stealth footprint.  That means the F-35 will see the F-22 first and get first shots.  What we are exporting ain't what we are flying in the US in the form of the F-35A and C. I don't know when they changed from the solid baked panels to the mesh panels but that's the way the US F-35s are made today.  Why that is better, I don't know and they ain't tellin'.
> 
> The F-35A can now  escort the B-2 all the way in and the F-22 can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even ...don't know where you got that ...F22 rcs much smaller than f35
Click to expand...


The figures that are used are from the original test birds before the modification of the carbon fiber mesh.  There are no figures available for the new version except it's equal to that of a mosquito.  Using old data to support new arguments is flawed.  But I do hope the enemy believes your "Truth".  It makes it so much nicer in battle.


----------



## DrainBamage

SandSquid said:


> Dude. You just got called out for lying.  Either purposefully or out of ignorance I am not sure which. And now you throw out another lie right behind that blindly.


And the ensuing string of posts exemplify what you pointed out with this post.

Manonthestreet is a liar, plain and simple. When someone keeps repeating the same thing that everyone else knows is incorrect, and ignores all requests for a source... he's just lying. He knows he was wrong about this plane, so he just keeps making up things about F-35 RCS and engine heat. No sense of self-respect.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The figures that are used are from the original test birds before the modification of the carbon fiber mesh.  There are no figures available for the new version except it's equal to that of a mosquito.


He also can't rationalize how all these pilots say it's dominating because they can't find it. Repeatedly claiming the F-35 isn't stealthy takes a special level of delusion, or willingness to be a serial liar.


----------



## DrainBamage

As further notation on the stupidity of ManOnTheStreet's "hottest engine so not stealthy" claim. We've already established he has no source for this other than his rich imagination, but:

Designed with serrated nozel and cooling vents which greatly reduce IR signature:















Also 5th gen aircraft tend to use tail features to hide engine from some angles, compare to 4th gen:


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The figures that are used are from the original test birds before the modification of the carbon fiber mesh.  There are no figures available for the new version except it's equal to that of a mosquito.
> 
> 
> 
> He also can't rationalize how all these pilots say it's dominating because they can't find it. Repeatedly claiming the F-35 isn't stealthy takes a special level of delusion, or willingness to be a serial liar.
Click to expand...


I can see it now.  The Russians scrambling over every marsh and swamp for every mosquito in there.  And flies, don't forget about flies.  Instead of expensive drones to draw their fire, we just drop a bunch of dung beetles dropped from cheap missile warheads.  Instead of germ warfare, we use bug warfare.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> As further notation on the stupidity of ManOnTheStreet's "hottest engine so not stealthy" claim. We've already established he has no source for this other than his rich imagination, but:
> 
> Designed with serrated nozel and cooling vents which greatly reduce IR signature:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also 5th gen aircraft tend to use tail features to hide engine from some angles, compare to 4th gen:



While the vented cool air does cool the exhaust a bit, the rest is for stealthy configuration.  Those serrations and angles are for stealth.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The US Navy now says it'll reach 355 ships by 2034, while whacking F-35Bs and a carrier from its five-year plan. What's the strategy?  Navy Unveils Record Budget, Pushing Above 300 Ships
ooooopppps


----------



## Manonthestreet

The official F-15X procurement announcement is exactly as we predicted it would be going back to when we broke the existence of the concept last July. This includes the exact initial procurement number—eight F-15EX (single seat) aircraft for 2020, a metric that at the time didn't match other outlets' reporting 
With the F-15X's inclusion in the budget came a whole new attitude toward buying any fighter but the F-35 from USAF officials. The message was clear—the days of the official DoD party line of "F-35 or nothing" are over. 
8 F-15Xs For USAF And 22 F-5s For Navy In 2020 Budget Request
double oooops


----------



## Manonthestreet

If I was Boeing I'd be working on a the next air supe fighter  for Navy fast as I could  and put the F-35 out of its misery


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The official F-15X procurement announcement is exactly as we predicted it would be going back to when we broke the existence of the concept last July. This includes the exact initial procurement number—eight F-15EX (single seat) aircraft for 2020, a metric that at the time didn't match other outlets' reporting
> With the F-15X's inclusion in the budget came a whole new attitude toward buying any fighter but the F-35 from USAF officials. The message was clear—the days of the official DoD party line of "F-35 or nothing" are over.
> 8 F-15Xs For USAF And 22 F-5s For Navy In 2020 Budget Request
> double oooops



The F-35A is replacing the F-16 on a one for one basis now.  And the F-15X is replacing the F-15A converted to Cs on a one for one.  At 8 per year, it's going to be a few years before the old As are taken  completely out of the inventory.  The F-35A is  still being purchased as fast as they can be manufactured.   In order to keep up with the world needs, they will probably have to fire up another assembly line.   All the world must be wrong, right?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The US Navy now says it'll reach 355 ships by 2034, while whacking F-35Bs and a carrier from its five-year plan. What's the strategy?  Navy Unveils Record Budget, Pushing Above 300 Ships
> ooooopppps



Unlike the Air Force, the Navy has to spend it's money very wisely.  If they want those 20 F-35Cs and all those new ships, they have to cut something else in procurement.  It costs one hell of a lot more money to run the Navy/Marines than the Air Force but the Air Force, as usual, gets the preference.  The good news is, the old Bugs will be being replaced slowly with both new F-35C, Bs and F-18E/Fs.  Much like the AF is replacing it's old 1970s vintage F-15s and F-16s.  These older birds are almost 40 years old and have had their Air Frame Times extended a few times.  And you really can't keep extending a Carrier Birds Max Air Frame Time very much past it's prime.  You might get away with that with the AF but not the Navy.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> If I was Boeing I'd be working on a the next air supe fighter  for Navy fast as I could  and put the F-35 out of its misery



Funny, the Navy is head over heals over their new F-35C.  Guess you need to tell all those Admirals that they don't know what they are doing.  Just do a search and call the Admirals in the Pentagon.  That should do it.


----------



## Manonthestreet

[when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> [when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....



The Air Force didn't cut a single one.  They buy every A model that comes off the assembly line.  The AF can't get enough of them.  The B got reduced when they discovered just how lethal the A is and reduced the number of Bs to purchase As.  The Navy reduced the Bs because there is just so much money in the wallet and had no choice but to go with the cheaper F-18E and Fs at about half the cost over the Bs.  But the Navy will not cut the Cs.  Like the Air Force, the Navy has some really tired old fighters they have to get out of the inventory.  The AF and Navy need to get rid of the old birds from the 70s.  The AF has upgraded their tired old A/B models to C/D standards bit the Navy couldn't upgrade their C/Ds to the E/Fs since the Superbugs are essentially a completely different fighter.  So, they do what they have to do.

The reason the AF is buying new F-15X models is because the assembly lines of the F-35 isn't keeping up with the needs of the pilots.  They have to get the old converted A models of the F-15 and F-16 out of the inventory as fast as possible before they start falling apart in the air.  So they found a way.  And that way works out pretty damned good.  But the F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  It was always supposed to replace the old tired F-16s that have lead a hard life, a much harder life than the F-15.  They can either replace them on the ground or wait and replace them in the Air and no one wants that to happen.  Well, maybe you do but not the rest  of us.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> [when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force didn't cut a single one.  They buy every A model that comes off the assembly line.  The AF can't get enough of them.  The B got reduced when they discovered just how lethal the A is and reduced the number of Bs to purchase As.  The Navy reduced the Bs because there is just so much money in the wallet and had no choice but to go with the cheaper F-18E and Fs at about half the cost over the Bs.  But the Navy will not cut the Cs.  Like the Air Force, the Navy has some really tired old fighters they have to get out of the inventory.  The AF and Navy need to get rid of the old birds from the 70s.  The AF has upgraded their tired old A/B models to C/D standards bit the Navy couldn't upgrade their C/Ds to the E/Fs since the Superbugs are essentially a completely different fighter.  So, they do what they have to do.
> 
> The reason the AF is buying new F-15X models is because the assembly lines of the F-35 isn't keeping up with the needs of the pilots.  They have to get the old converted A models of the F-15 and F-16 out of the inventory as fast as possible before they start falling apart in the air.  So they found a way.  And that way works out pretty damned good.  But the F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  It was always supposed to replace the old tired F-16s that have lead a hard life, a much harder life than the F-15.  They can either replace them on the ground or wait and replace them in the Air and no one wants that to happen.  Well, maybe you do but not the rest  of us.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the F-22 supposed to replace the F-15?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> [when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force didn't cut a single one.  They buy every A model that comes off the assembly line.  The AF can't get enough of them.  The B got reduced when they discovered just how lethal the A is and reduced the number of Bs to purchase As.  The Navy reduced the Bs because there is just so much money in the wallet and had no choice but to go with the cheaper F-18E and Fs at about half the cost over the Bs.  But the Navy will not cut the Cs.  Like the Air Force, the Navy has some really tired old fighters they have to get out of the inventory.  The AF and Navy need to get rid of the old birds from the 70s.  The AF has upgraded their tired old A/B models to C/D standards bit the Navy couldn't upgrade their C/Ds to the E/Fs since the Superbugs are essentially a completely different fighter.  So, they do what they have to do.
> 
> The reason the AF is buying new F-15X models is because the assembly lines of the F-35 isn't keeping up with the needs of the pilots.  They have to get the old converted A models of the F-15 and F-16 out of the inventory as fast as possible before they start falling apart in the air.  So they found a way.  And that way works out pretty damned good.  But the F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  It was always supposed to replace the old tired F-16s that have lead a hard life, a much harder life than the F-15.  They can either replace them on the ground or wait and replace them in the Air and no one wants that to happen.  Well, maybe you do but not the rest  of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't the F-22 supposed to replace the F-15?
Click to expand...


Yes.  But the cost got in the way.  In the end,it did go down but at 144 mil a copy in the last year, it averaged out closer to 244 mil per bird and they stopped the production.  They also knew the JSF was coming soon.  It just took longer than they imagined to get the JSF than they thought and it ended up different than they thought as well.  Can you imagine if they had put out 3 different contracts, what would have come out of that?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> [when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force didn't cut a single one.  They buy every A model that comes off the assembly line.  The AF can't get enough of them.  The B got reduced when they discovered just how lethal the A is and reduced the number of Bs to purchase As.  The Navy reduced the Bs because there is just so much money in the wallet and had no choice but to go with the cheaper F-18E and Fs at about half the cost over the Bs.  But the Navy will not cut the Cs.  Like the Air Force, the Navy has some really tired old fighters they have to get out of the inventory.  The AF and Navy need to get rid of the old birds from the 70s.  The AF has upgraded their tired old A/B models to C/D standards bit the Navy couldn't upgrade their C/Ds to the E/Fs since the Superbugs are essentially a completely different fighter.  So, they do what they have to do.
> 
> The reason the AF is buying new F-15X models is because the assembly lines of the F-35 isn't keeping up with the needs of the pilots.  They have to get the old converted A models of the F-15 and F-16 out of the inventory as fast as possible before they start falling apart in the air.  So they found a way.  And that way works out pretty damned good.  But the F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  It was always supposed to replace the old tired F-16s that have lead a hard life, a much harder life than the F-15.  They can either replace them on the ground or wait and replace them in the Air and no one wants that to happen.  Well, maybe you do but not the rest  of us.
Click to expand...

Now go read. More than Bs got cut. Not as many. Thing will never be built in numbers advertised. Navy for sure since they cut another carrier and neeed to beef out drone fleet to go with it. Future airway per carrier potentially only 10 f35...10! Of another fighter, rest drones and helps.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> [when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force didn't cut a single one.  They buy every A model that comes off the assembly line.  The AF can't get enough of them.  The B got reduced when they discovered just how lethal the A is and reduced the number of Bs to purchase As.  The Navy reduced the Bs because there is just so much money in the wallet and had no choice but to go with the cheaper F-18E and Fs at about half the cost over the Bs.  But the Navy will not cut the Cs.  Like the Air Force, the Navy has some really tired old fighters they have to get out of the inventory.  The AF and Navy need to get rid of the old birds from the 70s.  The AF has upgraded their tired old A/B models to C/D standards bit the Navy couldn't upgrade their C/Ds to the E/Fs since the Superbugs are essentially a completely different fighter.  So, they do what they have to do.
> 
> The reason the AF is buying new F-15X models is because the assembly lines of the F-35 isn't keeping up with the needs of the pilots.  They have to get the old converted A models of the F-15 and F-16 out of the inventory as fast as possible before they start falling apart in the air.  So they found a way.  And that way works out pretty damned good.  But the F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  It was always supposed to replace the old tired F-16s that have lead a hard life, a much harder life than the F-15.  They can either replace them on the ground or wait and replace them in the Air and no one wants that to happen.  Well, maybe you do but not the rest  of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now go read. More than Bs got cut. Not as many. Thing will never be built in numbers advertised. Navy for sure since they cut another carrier and neeed to beef out drone fleet to go with it. Future airway per carrier potentially only 10 f35...10! Of another fighter, rest drones and helps.
Click to expand...


The Navy has a hard road ahead.  They need those new capital ships.  And each capital ship costs more than the entire F-35A Air Force Fleet purchased as of today.  We aren't talking about 80 million, we are talking about 10s of billions and more per ship. While the Air Force is getting everything  they want and more, the Navy is having to cut procurement to afford those 50 or so capital ships they need.  Even so, the Navy is purchasing 30 F-35C models this year with more on the way next year with a few F-35Bs.  But the Navy has to make a choice between 2 F-35Bs or 3 F-35Cs.  They choose the 3 F-35Cs.  Much like Britain did when they lowered their B order and changed to the A and increased their number ordered.


----------



## Manonthestreet

They'll cut more. So will AF.  Pilot shortage and need for drones.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Only Capital ships navy will build is New ssbn and some Ford's. Ordered some drone subs already and I think they just bought two 2000 ton missile ships. Don't know load out yet


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> They'll cut more. So will AF.  Pilot shortage and need for drones.



The AF found a way around the Pilot Shortage.  Use Enlisted Troops to pilot the drones releasing the Pilots back to the fighters.  If I were a fighter pilot (the rush of all rushes) and they stuck me flying a friggin drone, I might be looking at an alternative job as well.  The facts remains, the AF has the pilots.  They don't have the aircraft to keep the Pilots current.  And that is currentcy is why our Pilots are the best in the world.  We got the Gas, the parts, the support troops and now the pilots but not enough seats to sit the butts in.  If we are forced (and we are) to taking the old converted A models out of service without replacements then we don't have the seats for the butts we have.    I saw a picture of what one person thought that Russians were doing due to lack of Fuel in training their Pilots.  I guess we can do the same thing.  Have your pilots walk in formation wearing a box with wings on it and practice formation flying.


----------



## Manonthestreet

No ..no they don't


----------



## Manonthestreet

Need the drones for the F35s ...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> No ..no they don't



No,NO they don't what?  You got to do better than that.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Need the drones for the F35s ...



Currently, there are thousands of drones that can be put into the air.  And currenttly they are using Pilots to fly them taking them out of the fighter seats to do it.  There is a pilot (see the pun) program to get enlisted people to fly the drones.    The Army and the AF are even looking at bringing back the Flying Sgts for less than hazardous aircraft flying to get more pilots into the seats they want to have for fighters.

One F-35 can only handle X number of drones.  At some point,, you are going to have to introduce Drone Pilots into the mix.  AI isn't up to the task quite yet and may never be.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need the drones for the F35s ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, there are thousands of drones that can be put into the air.  And currenttly they are using Pilots to fly them taking them out of the fighter seats to do it.  There is a pilot (see the pun) program to get enlisted people to fly the drones.    The Army and the AF are even looking at bringing back the Flying Sgts for less than hazardous aircraft flying to get more pilots into the seats they want to have for fighters.
> 
> One F-35 can only handle X number of drones.  At some point,, you are going to have to introduce Drone Pilots into the mix.  AI isn't up to the task quite yet and may never be.
Click to expand...

Not for combat ones controlled by F35....recce asw....terrorist wacking.....you won't need as many as you think. Stealth drones so you don't give away the  f35. If these missile ships pan out that's big step. Small frigate packed with missiles due to no need for crew. Add an autonomous drone helo....or single use throw away small plane type with cams.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need the drones for the F35s ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, there are thousands of drones that can be put into the air.  And currenttly they are using Pilots to fly them taking them out of the fighter seats to do it.  There is a pilot (see the pun) program to get enlisted people to fly the drones.    The Army and the AF are even looking at bringing back the Flying Sgts for less than hazardous aircraft flying to get more pilots into the seats they want to have for fighters.
> 
> One F-35 can only handle X number of drones.  At some point,, you are going to have to introduce Drone Pilots into the mix.  AI isn't up to the task quite yet and may never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for combat ones controlled by F35....recce asw....terrorist wacking.....you won't need as many as you think. Stealth drones so you don't give away the  f35. If these missile ships pan out that's big step. Small frigate packed with missiles due to no need for crew. Add an autonomous drone helo....or single use throw away small plane type with cams.....
Click to expand...


If, If, If.  Reality is now.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need the drones for the F35s ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, there are thousands of drones that can be put into the air.  And currenttly they are using Pilots to fly them taking them out of the fighter seats to do it.  There is a pilot (see the pun) program to get enlisted people to fly the drones.    The Army and the AF are even looking at bringing back the Flying Sgts for less than hazardous aircraft flying to get more pilots into the seats they want to have for fighters.
> 
> One F-35 can only handle X number of drones.  At some point,, you are going to have to introduce Drone Pilots into the mix.  AI isn't up to the task quite yet and may never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for combat ones controlled by F35....recce asw....terrorist wacking.....you won't need as many as you think. Stealth drones so you don't give away the  f35. If these missile ships pan out that's big step. Small frigate packed with missiles due to no need for crew. Add an autonomous drone helo....or single use throw away small plane type with cams.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If, If, If.  Reality is now.
Click to expand...

No ifs about it. Wingman drones debuting now


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need the drones for the F35s ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, there are thousands of drones that can be put into the air.  And currenttly they are using Pilots to fly them taking them out of the fighter seats to do it.  There is a pilot (see the pun) program to get enlisted people to fly the drones.    The Army and the AF are even looking at bringing back the Flying Sgts for less than hazardous aircraft flying to get more pilots into the seats they want to have for fighters.
> 
> One F-35 can only handle X number of drones.  At some point,, you are going to have to introduce Drone Pilots into the mix.  AI isn't up to the task quite yet and may never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for combat ones controlled by F35....recce asw....terrorist wacking.....you won't need as many as you think. Stealth drones so you don't give away the  f35. If these missile ships pan out that's big step. Small frigate packed with missiles due to no need for crew. Add an autonomous drone helo....or single use throw away small plane type with cams.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If, If, If.  Reality is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ifs about it. Wingman drones debuting now
Click to expand...


You need to tell us more about the wingman drone debuting now.  It appears that the rest of us don't have that much information at hand.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35 has hottest engine in fleet.....F18 will do ground support better simply cause it carries more.. Fact I would be surprised if an F-35 is ever tasked to do it simply because of cost differential in repairs. One reason I believe they are adding F-15s plus we dont have evough high altitude Fighters. F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18



Can an F-18 take off from an LHA?

No.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Manonthestreet said:


> F35 doesn't have range to escort any long range platform ....why Navy has alrdy started looking for it's replacement ....even before it's in the fleet in any numbers ...damning indictment



What long range platform?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> [when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force didn't cut a single one.  They buy every A model that comes off the assembly line.  The AF can't get enough of them.  The B got reduced when they discovered just how lethal the A is and reduced the number of Bs to purchase As.  The Navy reduced the Bs because there is just so much money in the wallet and had no choice but to go with the cheaper F-18E and Fs at about half the cost over the Bs.  But the Navy will not cut the Cs.  Like the Air Force, the Navy has some really tired old fighters they have to get out of the inventory.  The AF and Navy need to get rid of the old birds from the 70s.  The AF has upgraded their tired old A/B models to C/D standards bit the Navy couldn't upgrade their C/Ds to the E/Fs since the Superbugs are essentially a completely different fighter.  So, they do what they have to do.
> 
> The reason the AF is buying new F-15X models is because the assembly lines of the F-35 isn't keeping up with the needs of the pilots.  They have to get the old converted A models of the F-15 and F-16 out of the inventory as fast as possible before they start falling apart in the air.  So they found a way.  And that way works out pretty damned good.  But the F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  It was always supposed to replace the old tired F-16s that have lead a hard life, a much harder life than the F-15.  They can either replace them on the ground or wait and replace them in the Air and no one wants that to happen.  Well, maybe you do but not the rest  of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now go read. More than Bs got cut. Not as many. Thing will never be built in numbers advertised. Navy for sure since they cut another carrier and neeed to beef out drone fleet to go with it. Future airway per carrier potentially only 10 f35...10! Of another fighter, rest drones and helps.
Click to expand...


That carrier was restored to the budget.  Have a nice day!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F35 doesn't have range to escort any long range platform ....why Navy has alrdy started looking for it's replacement ....even before it's in the fleet in any numbers ...damning indictment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What long range platform?
Click to expand...


Without drop tanks (which it can use 2 of them) the F-35 has a slightly longer range than the F-18.  The Navy does miss the range of the F-14 though.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 has hottest engine in fleet.....F18 will do ground support better simply cause it carries more.. Fact I would be surprised if an F-35 is ever tasked to do it simply because of cost differential in repairs. One reason I believe they are adding F-15s plus we dont have evough high altitude Fighters. F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can an F-18 take off from an LHA?
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Never said it could .....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 has hottest engine in fleet.....F18 will do ground support better simply cause it carries more.. Fact I would be surprised if an F-35 is ever tasked to do it simply because of cost differential in repairs. One reason I believe they are adding F-15s plus we dont have evough high altitude Fighters. F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can an F-18 take off from an LHA?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said it could .....
Click to expand...


Actually, it might but it's going to be close.  But it can't land.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Manonthestreet said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35 has hottest engine in fleet.....F18 will do ground support better simply cause it carries more.. Fact I would be surprised if an F-35 is ever tasked to do it simply because of cost differential in repairs. One reason I believe they are adding F-15s plus we dont have evough high altitude Fighters. F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can an F-18 take off from an LHA?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said it could .....
Click to expand...


F-18s cannot do ground support for Marines if they have to take off from a carrier that may or may not be even in the area.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The B actually makes the most sense. Like to see  more dispersal among ship classes. DDG maybe or new class purpose built for 2-3 of em


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Manonthestreet said:


> The B actually makes the most sense. Like to see  more dispersal among ship classes. DDG maybe or new class purpose built for 2-3 of em



Apparently you don't realize that the F-35B uses a rolling takeoff that is not possible on a DDG.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The B actually makes the most sense. Like to see  more dispersal among ship classes. DDG maybe or new class purpose built for 2-3 of em
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you don't realize that the F-35B uses a rolling takeoff that is not possible on a DDG.
Click to expand...


It can take off vertically.  But it can't pick up much doing so.   It uses so much gas doing it that it shortens it's range severely even when just carrying the 6  internal missiles.  It's funny, give it 50 feet on full afterburner with the lift fan door open and it can take off using less fuel than using the verticle takeoff.  Give it 100 feet without after burner with the lift fan door open and it can take off fully loaded.  For a ship you can put a 100 foot runway on, the B is a remarkable aircraft.  Far superior to the Harrier.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> The US Navy now says it'll reach 355 ships by 2034, while whacking F-35Bs and a carrier from its five-year plan. What's the strategy?  Navy Unveils Record Budget, Pushing Above 300 Ships
> ooooopppps


Ahh you're interesting in judging F-35 by procurement planning versus actual.







Oooooops.

Also interesting was your link showed USN actually buying four more F-35Cs than planned in 2020, how many times have been yammering on in this thread about how USN F-35 program is in trouble and they don't want the plane?


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> With the F-15X's inclusion in the budget came a whole new attitude toward buying any fighter but the F-35 from USAF officials.


As Darryl pointed out, there hasn't been a single F-35 cut by USAF, so this s yet more information where the only source is yourself.



Manonthestreet said:


> If I was Boeing I'd be working on a the next air supe fighter  for Navy fast as I could  and put the F-35 out of its misery


I believe this, but you've demonstrated you don't really understand much about them and are willing to lie and purposely make misleading claims to support your advocacy. It doesn't it lend much weight to your "if I was" scenario.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> when is a cut not a cut ...when it's the F35 getting cut of course.....


So if in your simplistic fanboy world changes to procurement planned versus actual is an indication of what that service branch thinks of an airplane, how does USN increasing their F-35C buy not mean they are positive on the aircraft? I guess it only works one way for you, a cut means they don't like it but an increase must be waived away as politics.

You've been screaming that the program is in a death spiral for years in this thread, it must be quite frustrating for you that production and procurement keep accelerating for both DoD and international sales.



Manonthestreet said:


> They'll cut more. So will AF.  Pilot shortage and need for drones.


Yes there are dozens of posts with you predicting great cuts to the F-35 procurement, but it just hasn't happened. At what point do you maybe consider you don't know what you're talking about? (You don't have to answer that)


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Never said it could .....


But you did say F-18 can carry more ordnance, which is a lie.

You just spam lies all day in here and ignore anyone who challenges them.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> They are going to have to retro all you small carriers or just convert them to drone and choppers.. Cost for this program is going to sink the navy by itself


An example from a couple years ago of the "wisdom" of the village idiot.

F-35s have in fact been dropping a large share of the ordnance in Afghanistan via small carrier, yet the USN hasn't been sunk by the cost and they definitely haven't decided to convert them to choppers only.

When you're wrong enough times yet keep on making new gems for us to refer back to a few years from now.....


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> you have short legs


Ignorance knows no bounds. F-35s combat radius is significantly greater than the F-16, F-18, and F-22. Only F-15 has longer legs.

The fact you're criticizing a fighter with much longer range than the majority of aircraft it's replacing or complementing is quite telling in how rationally you're approaching this whole thing.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> No just the facts...your ceiling is low Forties


When lying comes naturally....

F-35 service ceiling is listed as "above 50,000 feet", same as F-16 and F-18.

Source = USAF 
F-35A Lightning II > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are going to have to retro all you small carriers or just convert them to drone and choppers.. Cost for this program is going to sink the navy by itself
> 
> 
> 
> An example from a couple years ago of the "wisdom" of the village idiot.
> 
> F-35s have in fact been dropping a large share of the ordnance in Afghanistan via small carrier, yet the USN hasn't been sunk by the cost and they definitely haven't decided to convert them to choppers only.
> 
> When you're wrong enough times yet keep on making new gems for us to refer back to a few years from now.....
Click to expand...


They did have to upgrade the landing pad to take the extra heat that the exhaust from the F-35B puts out.  Small price for such an asset.


----------



## rylah

The F-35's already visited Iran unnoticed.
As far as I understand the real deal is the F-22,
and what the Israelis developed until US forced closure.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

rylah said:


> The F-35's already visited Iran unnoticed.
> As far as I understand the real deal is the F-22,
> and what the Israelis developed until US forced closure.



That was one of the sore spots on Iran trying to put in S-300 missile batteries in Syria.  They wanted to put them exactly where the F-35 has to refuel on the way in and on the way out of Iran.  In this respect, the Israelis have no sense of humor.  Iran has to build an Air Base to hit Israel with an Aircraft because it really doesn't have much of an inflight refueling fleet.  Israel has one of the best in the world.  Okay, not up to par with the US but who is.  Even Britain needed the US refuelers for the Falklands.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> They did have to upgrade the landing pad to take the extra heat that the exhaust from the F-35B puts out.  Small price for such an asset.


Yes, point was Manonthestreet was spinning that as some incredible hurdle to the success of the program, where they would have to choose between bankrupting the Navy by upgrading the decks or giving up on using F-35B from naval assets and converting them to simple helicopter carriers. Or when Navy has problem with catapult, Manonthestreet was in here proclaiming "The C is in trouble!" but of course USN just adjusted the tension bar and solved it for little cost.

It's clearly motivated by fanboyism, desperately framing anything he can as some program ending disaster. It's got to be frustrating to him that the "program death spiral" he's been predicting for years isn't happening.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Even with these advantages, “aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two or three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day,” he wrote. Lockheed F-35 s Reliability Found Wanting in Shipboard Testing - Bloomberg Business
> Wow...can you imagine how quickly your air wing would be inoperable under real conditions.....thing might only be good for pretty pictures and wasting money.


Another Manonthestreet gem.

Of course USMC has been running sorties at twice the rate as possible with Harriers and maintaining a 75% availability rate. As with all of Manonthestreet's comments, they passing of time exposes them as rubbish.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> No ifs about it. Wingman drones debuting now





Daryl Hunt said:


> You need to tell us more about the wingman drone debuting now.  It appears that the rest of us don't have that much information at hand.



This is classic Manonthestreet, he just lies as needed to try to hold his own in here. He's referring to this, which he linked to in the military images thread: Boeing Will Unveil This 'Loyal Wingman' Combat Drone For Australia's Air Force Tomorrow (Updated)

According to that link Boeing has a "mockup" in a tent at a trade show, and is working on a prototype. In other words, this thing that Manonthestreet is describing as "debuting  now" doesn't exist outside of some power point slides and a hollow concept model at a trade show. This is why he's the village idiot.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ifs about it. Wingman drones debuting now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to tell us more about the wingman drone debuting now.  It appears that the rest of us don't have that much information at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is classic Manonthestreet, he just lies as needed to try to hold his own in here. He's referring to this, which he linked to in the military images thread: Boeing Will Unveil This 'Loyal Wingman' Combat Drone For Australia's Air Force Tomorrow (Updated)
> 
> According to that link Boeing has a "mockup" in a tent at a trade show, and is working on a prototype. In other words, this thing that Manonthestreet is describing as "debuting  now" doesn't exist outside of some power point slides and a hollow concept model at a trade show. This is why he's the village idiot.
Click to expand...


Yes, but Comrade Monobreath takes the view of the Russian and Chinese where if it's on a powerpoint, it's real and in operation.  We don't.  It has to be fully operational or it's not real.


----------



## DrainBamage

The Italians are in on the big conspiracy to lie about F-35's performance at Red Flag, they participated this year.

Aeronautica Militare, esercitazione "Red Flag 19-2": piloti italiani di F-35 volano per la prima volta con gli statunitensi ed i norvegesi. Commenti entusiasti sulle prestazioni del velivolo - Report Difesa

The weapon system was the most effective in neutralizing SAMs and absolutely essential in the immediate transmission of all the specific information for the success of the mission. "We knew we had an operating advantage, due to the 5th generation technology, but we didn't expect such a high rate of success - highlights the Major Emanuele A - in the 16 OCA missions (Offensive Counter Air) flown, against zero losses among the F-35s, we have neutralized more than 100 SAM systems ".
"I was impressed by the skills demonstrated by the F-35 in a complex and realistic environment such as the Red Flag where there are real professionals who simulate the Red Air, or the enemy air forces," added Major Giuseppe A. at the end of the exercise -. During our missions we were among the first to enter the area of operations, far beyond the enemy lines, and the last to leave it, thanks both to the great persistence and to the peculiar Low-Observability characteristics of our 5th generation aircraft. We were able to identify, transmit and neutralize terrestrial and air threats very quickly, protecting the coalition's assets in highly risky circumstances: the superior capabilities of the F-35 were often decisive ”.

Well damn this Italian who is actually a combat pilot needs to take some lessons from our own Manonthestreet, veteran basement dwelling blog reader who has assured us that the F-35 is not a stealthy aircraft.


----------



## rylah

Daryl Hunt said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35's already visited Iran unnoticed.
> As far as I understand the real deal is the F-22,
> and what the Israelis developed until US forced closure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the sore spots on Iran trying to put in S-300 missile batteries in Syria.  They wanted to put them exactly where the F-35 has to refuel on the way in and on the way out of Iran.  In this respect, the Israelis have no sense of humor.  Iran has to build an Air Base to hit Israel with an Aircraft because it really doesn't have much of an inflight refueling fleet.  Israel has one of the best in the world.  Okay, not up to par with the US but who is.  Even Britain needed the US refuelers for the Falklands.
Click to expand...


The analysis might be correct,
if not for a false assumption regarding refueling and launching points.
Much of middle eastern skies are open for the IAF, and much more is opening.

The stealth of the craft is also a compatible function of the political alliance, everyone knows who, but no group of members can know for sure where, or be concretely linked to the mission itself or a particular action.

It did cause Russians to fly by them over Lebanon at night to the opposite direction completely unnoticed, making it seem seem as if they were starting approach from the Mediterranean, when already at the western border of Syria.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

rylah said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35's already visited Iran unnoticed.
> As far as I understand the real deal is the F-22,
> and what the Israelis developed until US forced closure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the sore spots on Iran trying to put in S-300 missile batteries in Syria.  They wanted to put them exactly where the F-35 has to refuel on the way in and on the way out of Iran.  In this respect, the Israelis have no sense of humor.  Iran has to build an Air Base to hit Israel with an Aircraft because it really doesn't have much of an inflight refueling fleet.  Israel has one of the best in the world.  Okay, not up to par with the US but who is.  Even Britain needed the US refuelers for the Falklands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The analysis might be correct,
> if not for a false assumption regarding refueling and launching points.
> Much of middle eastern skies are open for the IAF, and much more is opening.
> 
> The stealth of the craft is also a compatible function of the political alliance, everyone knows who, but no group of members can know for sure where, or be concretely linked to the mission itself or a particular action.
> 
> It did cause Russians to fly by them over Lebanon at night to the opposite direction completely unnoticed, making it seem seem as if they were starting approach from the Mediterranean, when already at the western border of Syria.
Click to expand...


Please  expand on this.  You are a bit confusing or maybe I am a bit confused.


----------



## rylah

Daryl Hunt said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35's already visited Iran unnoticed.
> As far as I understand the real deal is the F-22,
> and what the Israelis developed until US forced closure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the sore spots on Iran trying to put in S-300 missile batteries in Syria.  They wanted to put them exactly where the F-35 has to refuel on the way in and on the way out of Iran.  In this respect, the Israelis have no sense of humor.  Iran has to build an Air Base to hit Israel with an Aircraft because it really doesn't have much of an inflight refueling fleet.  Israel has one of the best in the world.  Okay, not up to par with the US but who is.  Even Britain needed the US refuelers for the Falklands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The analysis might be correct,
> if not for a false assumption regarding refueling and launching points.
> Much of middle eastern skies are open for the IAF, and much more is opening.
> 
> The stealth of the craft is also a compatible function of the political alliance, everyone knows who, but no group of members can know for sure where, or be concretely linked to the mission itself or a particular action.
> 
> It did cause Russians to fly by them over Lebanon at night to the opposite direction completely unnoticed, making it seem seem as if they were starting approach from the Mediterranean, when already at the western border of Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please  expand on this.  You are a bit confusing or maybe I am a bit confused.
Click to expand...

How much do You think can be said?

Israeli fighters are stationed not only in Israel.
And the F-35 is much more than a single machine, it's a component of a huge system, including cyber warfare that for the last several years has been calibrated in practice and coordination with the US and several other allies in the region. Its stealth only ends with the construction and materials.

No Arab country will be able to point a finger at another, because most already opened their bases and skies for the IAF operations, and none have the capability to actually track the craft.

Everyone knows who, everyone knows the direction of the targets, no one knows exactly where from.
As long as it's a guess game - all the allied Arab countries have an alibi so to speak.

A truly magnificent machine from both the strategic and political standpoints.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

rylah said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35's already visited Iran unnoticed.
> As far as I understand the real deal is the F-22,
> and what the Israelis developed until US forced closure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the sore spots on Iran trying to put in S-300 missile batteries in Syria.  They wanted to put them exactly where the F-35 has to refuel on the way in and on the way out of Iran.  In this respect, the Israelis have no sense of humor.  Iran has to build an Air Base to hit Israel with an Aircraft because it really doesn't have much of an inflight refueling fleet.  Israel has one of the best in the world.  Okay, not up to par with the US but who is.  Even Britain needed the US refuelers for the Falklands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The analysis might be correct,
> if not for a false assumption regarding refueling and launching points.
> Much of middle eastern skies are open for the IAF, and much more is opening.
> 
> The stealth of the craft is also a compatible function of the political alliance, everyone knows who, but no group of members can know for sure where, or be concretely linked to the mission itself or a particular action.
> 
> It did cause Russians to fly by them over Lebanon at night to the opposite direction completely unnoticed, making it seem seem as if they were starting approach from the Mediterranean, when already at the western border of Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please  expand on this.  You are a bit confusing or maybe I am a bit confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do You think can be said?
> 
> Israeli fighters are stationed not only in Israel.
> And the F-35 is much more than a single machine, it's a component of a huge system, including cyber warfare that for the last several years has been calibrated in practice and coordination with the US and several other allies in the region. Its stealth only ends with the construction and materials.
> 
> No Arab country will be able to point a finger at another, because most already opened their bases and skies for the IAF operations, and none have the capability to actually track the craft.
> 
> Everyone knows who, everyone knows the direction of the targets, no one knows exactly where from.
> As long as it's a guess game - all the allied Arab countries have an alibi so to speak.
> 
> A truly magnificent machine from both the strategic and political standpoints.
Click to expand...


It still lacks the unrefueled range to make it that far into Iran so they need to refuel over Syria.  Iran wanted to put in SA sites right about where the F-35 would have to refuel.  You don't have to stop the F-35.  You can just stop the refueling birds.  Israel had other thoughts on that one and no Iranian SA sites are there.  If Iran puts them in, Israel takes them out.  And all Syria does is lodge complaint after complaint and Russia might do a small grumble but that's about it.


----------



## Bleipriester

I new era of air war?

Meet the new mini version of the F-35 stealth jet


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The cost of the F-35A ends up being a bargain in today's standard and even when compared to other years.  It's now equal to the cost of a F-18E/F per unit and equal to the F-15X.  There have been enough made to pay for it's R&D and it's price has dropped considerably.  The price was kept so high because of the B model.  And the B model kept the A from being introduced and has lead to the delay and the cost of the C.  

The two most expensive weapons systems in history when adjusted is the B-29 and the Manhattan Program in that order.  Closely followed by the B-2 and then the F-22 program.  The F-35 program has since dropped from this list.

Here is a chart showing the purchase cost of aircraft not adjusted to today's dollars.







It's a little bit misleading.  The F-15E is now the F-15SA and has gone up to about 110 mil a copy while the F35A has dropped below 90 mil a copy and will probably end up right around 80 when a few years.  

The F-16E Block 60 is running about 80 mil a copy.  The price you see here is for the old F-16C/D Block 40 which is out of production.  

This is just for fighters.  The B-2 goes off the scale at about 2 billion a copy.  And with so few made, it dwarfs the program costs of the F-35.


----------



## rylah

Daryl Hunt said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35's already visited Iran unnoticed.
> As far as I understand the real deal is the F-22,
> and what the Israelis developed until US forced closure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the sore spots on Iran trying to put in S-300 missile batteries in Syria.  They wanted to put them exactly where the F-35 has to refuel on the way in and on the way out of Iran.  In this respect, the Israelis have no sense of humor.  Iran has to build an Air Base to hit Israel with an Aircraft because it really doesn't have much of an inflight refueling fleet.  Israel has one of the best in the world.  Okay, not up to par with the US but who is.  Even Britain needed the US refuelers for the Falklands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The analysis might be correct,
> if not for a false assumption regarding refueling and launching points.
> Much of middle eastern skies are open for the IAF, and much more is opening.
> 
> The stealth of the craft is also a compatible function of the political alliance, everyone knows who, but no group of members can know for sure where, or be concretely linked to the mission itself or a particular action.
> 
> It did cause Russians to fly by them over Lebanon at night to the opposite direction completely unnoticed, making it seem seem as if they were starting approach from the Mediterranean, when already at the western border of Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please  expand on this.  You are a bit confusing or maybe I am a bit confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do You think can be said?
> 
> Israeli fighters are stationed not only in Israel.
> And the F-35 is much more than a single machine, it's a component of a huge system, including cyber warfare that for the last several years has been calibrated in practice and coordination with the US and several other allies in the region. Its stealth only ends with the construction and materials.
> 
> No Arab country will be able to point a finger at another, because most already opened their bases and skies for the IAF operations, and none have the capability to actually track the craft.
> 
> Everyone knows who, everyone knows the direction of the targets, no one knows exactly where from.
> As long as it's a guess game - all the allied Arab countries have an alibi so to speak.
> 
> A truly magnificent machine from both the strategic and political standpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still lacks the unrefueled range to make it that far into Iran so they need to refuel over Syria.  Iran wanted to put in SA sites right about where the F-35 would have to refuel.  You don't have to stop the F-35.  You can just stop the refueling birds.  Israel had other thoughts on that one and no Iranian SA sites are there.  If Iran puts them in, Israel takes them out.  And all Syria does is lodge complaint after complaint and Russia might do a small grumble but that's about it.
Click to expand...


The path You're describing is one of the longest and probably most saturated.
Do You assume the refueling range is about the distance between Riyadh and Tehran?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

rylah said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the sore spots on Iran trying to put in S-300 missile batteries in Syria.  They wanted to put them exactly where the F-35 has to refuel on the way in and on the way out of Iran.  In this respect, the Israelis have no sense of humor.  Iran has to build an Air Base to hit Israel with an Aircraft because it really doesn't have much of an inflight refueling fleet.  Israel has one of the best in the world.  Okay, not up to par with the US but who is.  Even Britain needed the US refuelers for the Falklands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The analysis might be correct,
> if not for a false assumption regarding refueling and launching points.
> Much of middle eastern skies are open for the IAF, and much more is opening.
> 
> The stealth of the craft is also a compatible function of the political alliance, everyone knows who, but no group of members can know for sure where, or be concretely linked to the mission itself or a particular action.
> 
> It did cause Russians to fly by them over Lebanon at night to the opposite direction completely unnoticed, making it seem seem as if they were starting approach from the Mediterranean, when already at the western border of Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please  expand on this.  You are a bit confusing or maybe I am a bit confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do You think can be said?
> 
> Israeli fighters are stationed not only in Israel.
> And the F-35 is much more than a single machine, it's a component of a huge system, including cyber warfare that for the last several years has been calibrated in practice and coordination with the US and several other allies in the region. Its stealth only ends with the construction and materials.
> 
> No Arab country will be able to point a finger at another, because most already opened their bases and skies for the IAF operations, and none have the capability to actually track the craft.
> 
> Everyone knows who, everyone knows the direction of the targets, no one knows exactly where from.
> As long as it's a guess game - all the allied Arab countries have an alibi so to speak.
> 
> A truly magnificent machine from both the strategic and political standpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still lacks the unrefueled range to make it that far into Iran so they need to refuel over Syria.  Iran wanted to put in SA sites right about where the F-35 would have to refuel.  You don't have to stop the F-35.  You can just stop the refueling birds.  Israel had other thoughts on that one and no Iranian SA sites are there.  If Iran puts them in, Israel takes them out.  And all Syria does is lodge complaint after complaint and Russia might do a small grumble but that's about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The path You're describing is one of the longest and probably most saturated.
> Do You assume the refueling range is about the distance between Riyadh and Tehran?
Click to expand...


You are assuming that SA and Jordan will give them permission for the overflight.  And yes, the unrefueled flight you are suggesting is actually longer for much of Iran.  The Israelis probably won't bother asking the Syrians nor the Iraqis for the overflight.  They'll just go ahead and do it.  But in order to do it, they will have to refuel somewhere over Syria both ways.  Same goes for going via SA Jordan.  Chances are, if they need to, they may do it both ways or are already doing it both ways already.


----------



## DrainBamage

USS Wasp was seen rolling through Taiwan Straits configured as pocket carrier, ten F-35Bs and four Ospreys were on the deck. It'll be participating in amphibious assault exercises with Philippine military.  USS Essex was the LHD being used to perform hundreds of sorties in the Middle East as part of 13th MEU. That's a lot of F-35s deployed and seeing action despite ManOnTheStreet's assurances that F-35s would never do anything but sit in hangars.


----------



## Manonthestreet

At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned.  US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
Wow how many yrs of production is that.....Gotta be at least a decade


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned.  US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
> Wow how many yrs of production is that.....Gotta be at least a decade



The fact remains that there aren't enough manufacturing lines for the F-35.  The ones that were supposed to done overseas never happened so all production falls on Lockheed Martin USA.  And all of a sudden, there are tons of countries that want the F-35.  The F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  The F-22 was supposed to do that and that just didn't quite work out.  So we have a choice of running the old updated F-15A models into the ground(they already have an extremely high operating cost) or get replacements for it.  Boeing has a perfectly good manufacturing line ready to go and can produce them for just about 78K a copy and they can use the supply lines from the E and recent C and Ds.  Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

And the F-35 needs another line started up to make it's quota.  We can't depend on the ones that may or may not happen overseas.  Besides, I feel a little uneasy teaching them how to do the type of stealth that the F-35 has become.  I don't think it's a good idea.  Maybe the Generals don't think so either.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned.  US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
> Wow how many yrs of production is that.....Gotta be at least a decade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there aren't enough manufacturing lines for the F-35.  The ones that were supposed to done overseas never happened so all production falls on Lockheed Martin USA.  And all of a sudden, there are tons of countries that want the F-35.  The F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  The F-22 was supposed to do that and that just didn't quite work out.  So we have a choice of running the old updated F-15A models into the ground(they already have an extremely high operating cost) or get replacements for it.  Boeing has a perfectly good manufacturing line ready to go and can produce them for just about 78K a copy and they can use the supply lines from the E and recent C and Ds.  Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
> 
> And the F-35 needs another line started up to make it's quota.  We can't depend on the ones that may or may not happen overseas.  Besides, I feel a little uneasy teaching them how to do the type of stealth that the F-35 has become.  I don't think it's a good idea.  Maybe the Generals don't think so either.
Click to expand...

Arent they turning them pout in Italy. I heard the the drive to disperse production all over the world was huge blunder....no control over quality


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned.  US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
> Wow how many yrs of production is that.....Gotta be at least a decade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that there aren't enough manufacturing lines for the F-35.  The ones that were supposed to done overseas never happened so all production falls on Lockheed Martin USA.  And all of a sudden, there are tons of countries that want the F-35.  The F-35A was never supposed to replace the F-15.  The F-22 was supposed to do that and that just didn't quite work out.  So we have a choice of running the old updated F-15A models into the ground(they already have an extremely high operating cost) or get replacements for it.  Boeing has a perfectly good manufacturing line ready to go and can produce them for just about 78K a copy and they can use the supply lines from the E and recent C and Ds.  Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
> 
> And the F-35 needs another line started up to make it's quota.  We can't depend on the ones that may or may not happen overseas.  Besides, I feel a little uneasy teaching them how to do the type of stealth that the F-35 has become.  I don't think it's a good idea.  Maybe the Generals don't think so either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arent they turning them pout in Italy. I heard the the drive to disperse production all over the world was huge blunder....no control over quality
Click to expand...


They have turned out a few.  But it's questionable how many others they will churn out.  It seems the ones they already have in the Italian AF may be the only ones they purchase.  But the Military of Defense for Italy is wafting on it right now since it would probably mean the loss of over 6000 jobs that Italy badly needs.  USA can start another line and take up the slack if they do shut their plant down.  The only thing Italy can do is lose either way on this one.  Politics at it's worst.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The F-35 program brings together the world’s most experienced aerospace industry leaders, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney. The global team also includes more than 1,400 suppliers from domestic and international companies around the world. This landmark project combines team expertise with sophisticated manufacturing, engineering and technological capabilities. https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/production no date that I could see.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned.  US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
> Wow how many yrs of production is that.....Gotta be at least a decade


Congrats, you have FINALLY found a legit criticism of the F-35 program, it's way late.

After all your idiotic shit/lies about it can't fly high/fast enough, can't fight, isn't stealthy, has a higher IR signature, etc. you like the blind man in the woods stumbled upon something.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> At a Senate Armed Services Committee on the Air Force’s fiscal 2020 budget request, the service’s top official said the decision to seek eight F-15X aircraft is a short-term patch, as 800 fewer F-35s are operational than planned.  US Air Force defends F-15X buy to skeptical Inhofe, Reed
> Wow how many yrs of production is that.....Gotta be at least a decade
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats, you have FINALLY found a legit criticism of the F-35 program, it's way late.
> 
> After all your idiotic shit/lies about it can't fly high/fast enough, can't fight, isn't stealthy, has a higher IR signature, etc. you like the blind man in the woods stumbled upon something.
Click to expand...


He didn't find a thing.  What he found was that if they bring on the F-35 on the rate some no aero people want, they won't have enough asses to fill the seats.  It's all about pilots.  The training involved to bring a F-15 pilot to a full F-35 pilot is very long.  That leaves a bunch of F-15Cs on the ground without pilots.  By bringing in the X model, they can get a C or and E model pilot trained in a matter of days which keeps the ass seat filled.  And they can go after other butts to fill the F-35.


----------



## DrainBamage

The F-35 program death spiral continues, Greece/Poland/Romania....

Greece to examine F-35 acquisition, says defense minister | Kathimerini
Greece will consider the possibility of acquiring the US-made F-35 fighter jets as part of its efforts to upgrade its Air Force fleet, Defense Minister Evangelos Apostolakis said on Friday, following remarks by a US official on expanding the sales of the aircraft. Media reported that a US Pentagon official told Congress on Thursday that the country is considering expanding sales of Lockheed Martin Corp-made F-35 fighter jets to five new nations including Romania, Greece and Poland. “Beyond the upgrade of the F-16 fighter jets, we are in the process of selecting a new plane for Greece, so we can gradually move to the new generation of aircraft,” he told journalists during a visit to Andravida Air Base, western Peloponnese.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F35 rcs is larger than F-22 marginally smaller than f-18





Manonthestreet said:


> Not even ...don't know where you got that ...F22 rcs much smaller than f35


Was reading a paper on RCS that reminded me of Manonthestreet's constant (and hilariously naive) bleating about how F-35 isn't stealthy and your complete inability to back this claim up with any facts other than because he says so.


Detection range of F-35 versus F-18 E/F, what you call "marginally" is 6 miles versus 60 miles. The F-35 in that graph could take out the IADS element with a JDAM, and that's exactly what they've been using for F-35 SEAD/DEAD in exercises. The F-18 is right on the margins of being able to deploy standoff glide weapons like JSOW and SDB. You'd have to be colossally stupid to claim the F-35 isn't stealthy or that it's advantage over previous gen is marginal.






Analysis of F-35 RCS, blue line is just the shape and green line is shape + radar absorbing materials. The F-35 in this illustration is facing to the left. Units are dBsm so 10*log(RCS in square meters) so 0 dBsm = 1 square meter RCS,  -10=0.1 square meters, -20=0.01 square meters, 10=10, 20=100, etc. We'll note this also effectively puts to bed your claim F-35 is only stealthy frontal-aspect, obviously it's optimized frontal (like all stealth aircraft) but at worse angles it's still less than 0.01 sm RCS.






For comparison sake, here is F-35 and F-22 analysis of shape only. It's pretty close, F-35 is better frontal and quarters but F-22 looks better from sides and rear. Regardless it's close and clearly both are very stealthy aircraft. Also note stealth coating (not included in this image) is superior on F-35.






Finally for giggles here is RCS of F-15, like the others facing to the left. Total brick from the front due to intakes with exposed fans, brick from the side due to 90 degree tails. This would only get uglier carrying external ordnance, although the minor tweak of slightly canted tails on F-15SE would probably drastically reduce that side exposure. They would also use radar absorbing materials to mitigate all around and carry weapons internally.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> F35 has frontal stealth only


Hello! Still waiting on you to explain how a plane with an RCS less than 0.01 square meters at it's absolute worst angle has frontal stealth only.

Below image is RCS analysis of an F-35 facing to the left, blue is shape and green is with coating. Even without the  stealth coating the plane is 0.1 sm for about 160 degrees frontal. Where were you getting this info that it's only stealthy from head-on?


----------



## SandSquid

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F35 has frontal stealth only
> 
> 
> 
> Hello! Still waiting on you to explain how a plane with an RCS less than 0.01 square meters at it's absolute worst angle has frontal stealth only.
> 
> Below image is RCS analysis of an F-35 facing to the left, blue is shape and green is with coating. Even without the  stealth coating the plane is 0.1 sm for about 160 degrees frontal. Where were you getting this info that it's only stealthy from head-on?
Click to expand...


So from it's side the F35 has a .001 square meter  radar cross section. 

  that is a 1.5 inch square.   Basically the size of a watch face. And at worst after passing by shows up the size of a smartphone.  

But he thinks that isn't stealth?


----------



## DrainBamage

The sidekick bumps internal AAM load to six: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter - Seapower

ARLINGTON, Va. — The builder of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter has designed a new weapons rack to enable the aircraft to carry two more missiles internally. The new rack, called Sidekick, enables each of the two weapons bays of the Air Force F-35A and Navy carrier-capable F-35C to carry three AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) instead of the current two, for a total of six internally carried AMRAAMs. Speaking May 1 to reporters at a Lockheed Martin media briefing, a company F-35 test pilot, Tony ‘Brick’ Wilson, said the rack was developed entirely with company internal research and development funds. The rack is not compatible with the vertical lift Marine Corps F-35B version, which has smaller weapons bay. The F-35 can carry more AMRAAMs on external pylons, but Wilson pointed out that carrying two more internally preserves the stealth characteristics of the F-35. “The extra missiles add a little weight but are not adding extra drag,” Wilson said.


----------



## Bleipriester

Grounded.

"The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."

F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Grounded.
> 
> "The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."
> 
> F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA



Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful.  Try again, comrade.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grounded.
> 
> "The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."
> 
> F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful.  Try again, comrade.
Click to expand...

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grounded.
> 
> "The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."
> 
> F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful.  Try again, comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf
Click to expand...


Now, that was painless, wasn't it.  Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system?  I have.  Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get.  And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications.  We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C.  The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models.  Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well.  They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form.  It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.  

Keep that 35% figure in mind.  The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts.  They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models.  Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work.  They tried some new ideas.  As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink.  It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35.  And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it.  While the overall fleet  may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%.  The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books.  Yet we still met our missions.  Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grounded.
> 
> "The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."
> 
> F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful.  Try again, comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, that was painless, wasn't it.  Here we go.
> 
> Have you ever worked on a new weapon system?  I have.  Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get.  And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications.  We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C.  The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models.  Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well.  They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form.  It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.
> 
> Keep that 35% figure in mind.  The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts.  They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models.  Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work.  They tried some new ideas.  As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink.  It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35.  And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.
> 
> Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it.  While the overall fleet  may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%.  The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.
> 
> Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books.  Yet we still met our missions.  Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.
> 
> It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.
Click to expand...

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grounded.
> 
> "The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."
> 
> F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful.  Try again, comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, that was painless, wasn't it.  Here we go.
> 
> Have you ever worked on a new weapon system?  I have.  Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get.  And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications.  We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C.  The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models.  Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well.  They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form.  It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.
> 
> Keep that 35% figure in mind.  The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts.  They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models.  Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work.  They tried some new ideas.  As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink.  It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35.  And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.
> 
> Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it.  While the overall fleet  may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%.  The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.
> 
> Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books.  Yet we still met our missions.  Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.
> 
> It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.
Click to expand...


One would think so.  But the problem is,  each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements.  For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems.  The Navy also needs that.  But the AF didn't.  The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load.  Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load.  The Navy  and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system  but the Marines not so much.  Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different.  The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate.  Each one got what they wanted.  But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.  

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best.  This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts.  The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete.  The worst one for that is the F-35A.  The changes happen almost overnight.  Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it.  But just remember this,  Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es.  After  all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while  Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%.  Sounds like the F-4  should have won.  It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es.  AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems.  Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4.  The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they  used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders.  One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.  

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grounded.
> 
> "The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."
> 
> F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful.  Try again, comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, that was painless, wasn't it.  Here we go.
> 
> Have you ever worked on a new weapon system?  I have.  Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get.  And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications.  We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C.  The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models.  Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well.  They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form.  It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.
> 
> Keep that 35% figure in mind.  The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts.  They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models.  Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work.  They tried some new ideas.  As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink.  It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35.  And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.
> 
> Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it.  While the overall fleet  may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%.  The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.
> 
> Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books.  Yet we still met our missions.  Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.
> 
> It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would think so.  But the problem is,  each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements.  For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems.  The Navy also needs that.  But the AF didn't.  The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load.  Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load.  The Navy  and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system  but the Marines not so much.  Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different.  The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate.  Each one got what they wanted.  But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.
> 
> Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best.  This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.
> 
> Now about the parts.  The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete.  The worst one for that is the F-35A.  The changes happen almost overnight.  Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it.  But just remember this,  Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es.  After  all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while  Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%.  Sounds like the F-4  should have won.  It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es.  AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems.  Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4.  The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they  used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders.  One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.
> 
> So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.
Click to expand...

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful.  Try again, comrade.
> 
> 
> 
> The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, that was painless, wasn't it.  Here we go.
> 
> Have you ever worked on a new weapon system?  I have.  Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get.  And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications.  We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C.  The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models.  Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well.  They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form.  It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.
> 
> Keep that 35% figure in mind.  The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts.  They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models.  Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work.  They tried some new ideas.  As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink.  It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35.  And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.
> 
> Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it.  While the overall fleet  may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%.  The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.
> 
> Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books.  Yet we still met our missions.  Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.
> 
> It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would think so.  But the problem is,  each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements.  For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems.  The Navy also needs that.  But the AF didn't.  The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load.  Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load.  The Navy  and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system  but the Marines not so much.  Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different.  The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate.  Each one got what they wanted.  But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.
> 
> Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best.  This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.
> 
> Now about the parts.  The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete.  The worst one for that is the F-35A.  The changes happen almost overnight.  Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it.  But just remember this,  Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es.  After  all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while  Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%.  Sounds like the F-4  should have won.  It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es.  AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems.  Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4.  The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they  used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders.  One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.
> 
> So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
> For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.
Click to expand...


The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all.  But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter.  The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it.  But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family.  It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell.  Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that was painless, wasn't it.  Here we go.
> 
> Have you ever worked on a new weapon system?  I have.  Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get.  And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications.  We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C.  The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models.  Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well.  They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form.  It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.
> 
> Keep that 35% figure in mind.  The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts.  They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models.  Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work.  They tried some new ideas.  As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink.  It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35.  And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.
> 
> Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it.  While the overall fleet  may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%.  The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.
> 
> Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books.  Yet we still met our missions.  Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.
> 
> It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would think so.  But the problem is,  each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements.  For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems.  The Navy also needs that.  But the AF didn't.  The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load.  Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load.  The Navy  and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system  but the Marines not so much.  Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different.  The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate.  Each one got what they wanted.  But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.
> 
> Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best.  This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.
> 
> Now about the parts.  The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete.  The worst one for that is the F-35A.  The changes happen almost overnight.  Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it.  But just remember this,  Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es.  After  all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while  Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%.  Sounds like the F-4  should have won.  It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es.  AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems.  Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4.  The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they  used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders.  One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.
> 
> So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
> For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all.  But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter.  The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it.  But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family.  It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell.  Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.
> 
> Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?
Click to expand...

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that was painless, wasn't it.  Here we go.
> 
> Have you ever worked on a new weapon system?  I have.  Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get.  And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications.  We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C.  The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models.  Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well.  They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form.  It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.
> 
> Keep that 35% figure in mind.  The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts.  They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models.  Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work.  They tried some new ideas.  As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink.  It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35.  And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.
> 
> Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it.  While the overall fleet  may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%.  The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.
> 
> Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books.  Yet we still met our missions.  Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.
> 
> It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.
> 
> 
> 
> When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would think so.  But the problem is,  each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements.  For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems.  The Navy also needs that.  But the AF didn't.  The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load.  Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load.  The Navy  and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system  but the Marines not so much.  Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different.  The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate.  Each one got what they wanted.  But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.
> 
> Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best.  This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.
> 
> Now about the parts.  The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete.  The worst one for that is the F-35A.  The changes happen almost overnight.  Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it.  But just remember this,  Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es.  After  all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while  Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%.  Sounds like the F-4  should have won.  It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es.  AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems.  Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4.  The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they  used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders.  One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.
> 
> So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
> For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all.  But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter.  The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it.  But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family.  It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell.  Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.
> 
> Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.
Click to expand...


And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired.  Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or  go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost.  Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the  original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine.  The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate.  They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed.  The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner.  That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3.  Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A.  What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin.  And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy.  Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold.  When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with.  The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world.  They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One would think so.  But the problem is,  each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements.  For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems.  The Navy also needs that.  But the AF didn't.  The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load.  Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load.  The Navy  and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system  but the Marines not so much.  Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different.  The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate.  Each one got what they wanted.  But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.
> 
> Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best.  This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.
> 
> Now about the parts.  The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete.  The worst one for that is the F-35A.  The changes happen almost overnight.  Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it.  But just remember this,  Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es.  After  all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while  Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%.  Sounds like the F-4  should have won.  It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es.  AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems.  Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4.  The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they  used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders.  One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.
> 
> So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
> For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all.  But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter.  The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it.  But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family.  It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell.  Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.
> 
> Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired.  Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or  go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost.  Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the  original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine.  The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate.  They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed.  The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner.  That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3.  Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A.  What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin.  And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy.  Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold.  When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with.  The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world.  They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.
Click to expand...

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> One would think so.  But the problem is,  each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements.  For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems.  The Navy also needs that.  But the AF didn't.  The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load.  Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load.  The Navy  and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system  but the Marines not so much.  Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different.  The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate.  Each one got what they wanted.  But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.
> 
> Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best.  This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.
> 
> Now about the parts.  The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete.  The worst one for that is the F-35A.  The changes happen almost overnight.  Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it.  But just remember this,  Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es.  After  all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while  Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%.  Sounds like the F-4  should have won.  It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es.  AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems.  Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4.  The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they  used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders.  One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.
> 
> So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
> For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all.  But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter.  The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it.  But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family.  It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell.  Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.
> 
> Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired.  Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or  go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost.  Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the  original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine.  The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate.  They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed.  The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner.  That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3.  Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A.  What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin.  And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy.  Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold.  When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with.  The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world.  They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.
Click to expand...


It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces.  It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers.  Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back.  China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't.  I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
> For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all.  But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter.  The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it.  But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family.  It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell.  Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.
> 
> Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired.  Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or  go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost.  Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the  original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine.  The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate.  They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed.  The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner.  That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3.  Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A.  What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin.  And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy.  Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold.  When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with.  The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world.  They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces.  It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers.  Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back.  China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't.  I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.
Click to expand...

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

The word is "berth", not "birth"!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all.  But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter.  The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it.  But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family.  It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell.  Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.
> 
> Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired.  Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or  go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost.  Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the  original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine.  The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate.  They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed.  The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner.  That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3.  Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A.  What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin.  And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy.  Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold.  When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with.  The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world.  They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces.  It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers.  Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back.  China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't.  I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
> The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.
> 
> Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
> Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


I notice that both of your sources come from Syria.  One is extremely questionable.  The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35.  About  the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land.  Your Syrian report was made up.  

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants.  Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain.  If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected.  I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two.  Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago.  Stop lying.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired.  Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or  go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost.  Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the  original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine.  The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate.  They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed.  The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner.  That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3.  Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A.  What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin.  And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy.  Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold.  When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with.  The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world.  They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces.  It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers.  Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back.  China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't.  I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
> The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.
> 
> Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
> Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice that both of your sources come from Syria.  One is extremely questionable.  The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35.  About  the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land.  Your Syrian report was made up.
> 
> Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants.  Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain.  If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected.  I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two.  Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago.  Stop lying.
Click to expand...

You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired.  Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or  go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost.  Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the  original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine.  The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate.  They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed.  The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner.  That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3.  Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A.  What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin.  And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy.  Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold.  When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with.  The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world.  They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.
> 
> 
> 
> There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces.  It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers.  Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back.  China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't.  I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
> The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.
> 
> Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
> Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice that both of your sources come from Syria.  One is extremely questionable.  The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35.  About  the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land.  Your Syrian report was made up.
> 
> Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants.  Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain.  If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected.  I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two.  Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago.  Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
> As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
> Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.
Click to expand...


You back to this tired old BS again?  Think about this, I have water Proof Matches.  Does that mean they are no subject to water?  No, when we, they won't light.  And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof.  Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof.  Proof,meaning, not affected.  

Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes.  And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far.  But many other fighters had had bird strikes.  They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast.  I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.


Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out.  You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.

Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces.  It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers.  Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back.  China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't.  I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
> The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.
> 
> Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
> Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice that both of your sources come from Syria.  One is extremely questionable.  The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35.  About  the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land.  Your Syrian report was made up.
> 
> Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants.  Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain.  If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected.  I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two.  Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago.  Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
> As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
> Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You back to this tired old BS again?  Think about this, I have water Proof Matches.  Does that mean they are no subject to water?  No, when we, they won't light.  And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof.  Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof.  Proof,meaning, not affected.
> 
> Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes.  And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far.  But many other fighters had had bird strikes.  They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast.  I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.
> 
> 
> Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out.  You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.
> 
> Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.
Click to expand...

Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces.  It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers.  Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back.  China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't.  I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
> The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.
> 
> Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
> Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice that both of your sources come from Syria.  One is extremely questionable.  The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35.  About  the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land.  Your Syrian report was made up.
> 
> Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants.  Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain.  If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected.  I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two.  Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago.  Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
> As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
> Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You back to this tired old BS again?  Think about this, I have water Proof Matches.  Does that mean they are no subject to water?  No, when we, they won't light.  And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof.  Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof.  Proof,meaning, not affected.
> 
> Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes.  And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far.  But many other fighters had had bird strikes.  They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast.  I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.
> 
> 
> Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out.  You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.
> 
> Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.
Click to expand...


A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison.  And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second.  They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot.  Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be.  They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely.  The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage.  Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35.  Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect.  The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.  

I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in  very long time.  Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
> The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.
> 
> Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
> Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that both of your sources come from Syria.  One is extremely questionable.  The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35.  About  the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land.  Your Syrian report was made up.
> 
> Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants.  Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain.  If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected.  I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two.  Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago.  Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
> As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
> Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You back to this tired old BS again?  Think about this, I have water Proof Matches.  Does that mean they are no subject to water?  No, when we, they won't light.  And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof.  Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof.  Proof,meaning, not affected.
> 
> Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes.  And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far.  But many other fighters had had bird strikes.  They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast.  I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.
> 
> 
> Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out.  You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.
> 
> Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison.  And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second.  They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot.  Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be.  They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely.  The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage.  Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35.  Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect.  The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.
> 
> I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in  very long time.  Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.
Click to expand...

That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.

Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report

People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that both of your sources come from Syria.  One is extremely questionable.  The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35.  About  the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land.  Your Syrian report was made up.
> 
> Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants.  Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain.  If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected.  I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two.  Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago.  Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
> As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
> Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You back to this tired old BS again?  Think about this, I have water Proof Matches.  Does that mean they are no subject to water?  No, when we, they won't light.  And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof.  Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof.  Proof,meaning, not affected.
> 
> Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes.  And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far.  But many other fighters had had bird strikes.  They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast.  I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.
> 
> 
> Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out.  You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.
> 
> Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison.  And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second.  They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot.  Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be.  They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely.  The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage.  Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35.  Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect.  The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.
> 
> I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in  very long time.  Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.
> 
> Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report
> 
> People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.
Click to expand...


Your article is full of holes.  The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range.  The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude.  With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude.  So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system.   But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K.  If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance.  Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded.  You can stop this nonsense right now.  You are looking like an .......  I almost said Idiot.  Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The word is "berth", not "birth"!



Are you talking to me......Are you talking to me........Say hello to my little friend.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Daryl Hunt said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word is "berth", not "birth"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking to me......Are you talking to me........Say hello to my little friend.
Click to expand...


Funny!  You are definitely funny, but looks aren't everything!


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
> As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
> Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You back to this tired old BS again?  Think about this, I have water Proof Matches.  Does that mean they are no subject to water?  No, when we, they won't light.  And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof.  Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof.  Proof,meaning, not affected.
> 
> Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes.  And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far.  But many other fighters had had bird strikes.  They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast.  I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.
> 
> 
> Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out.  You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.
> 
> Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison.  And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second.  They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot.  Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be.  They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely.  The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage.  Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35.  Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect.  The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.
> 
> I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in  very long time.  Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.
> 
> Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report
> 
> People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your article is full of holes.  The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range.  The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude.  With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude.  So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system.   But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K.  If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance.  Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded.  You can stop this nonsense right now.  You are looking like an .......  I almost said Idiot.  Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.
Click to expand...

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You back to this tired old BS again?  Think about this, I have water Proof Matches.  Does that mean they are no subject to water?  No, when we, they won't light.  And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof.  Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof.  Proof,meaning, not affected.
> 
> Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes.  And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far.  But many other fighters had had bird strikes.  They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast.  I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.
> 
> 
> Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out.  You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.
> 
> Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison.  And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second.  They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot.  Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be.  They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely.  The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage.  Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35.  Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect.  The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.
> 
> I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in  very long time.  Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.
> 
> Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report
> 
> People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your article is full of holes.  The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range.  The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude.  With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude.  So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system.   But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K.  If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance.  Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded.  You can stop this nonsense right now.  You are looking like an .......  I almost said Idiot.  Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.
Click to expand...


The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone.  the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't.  That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude.  Wow, what a fighter.  And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much.  It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.  

But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times.  I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word is "berth", not "birth"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking to me......Are you talking to me........Say hello to my little friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny!  You are definitely funny, but looks aren't everything!
Click to expand...


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison.  And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second.  They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot.  Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be.  They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely.  The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage.  Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35.  Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect.  The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.
> 
> I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in  very long time.  Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.
> 
> Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report
> 
> People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your article is full of holes.  The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range.  The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude.  With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude.  So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system.   But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K.  If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance.  Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded.  You can stop this nonsense right now.  You are looking like an .......  I almost said Idiot.  Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone.  the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't.  That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude.  Wow, what a fighter.  And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much.  It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.
> 
> But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times.  I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.
Click to expand...

How is my request going?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison.  And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second.  They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot.  Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be.  They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely.  The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage.  Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35.  Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect.  The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.
> 
> I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in  very long time.  Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.
> 
> Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report
> 
> People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your article is full of holes.  The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range.  The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude.  With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude.  So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system.   But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K.  If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance.  Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded.  You can stop this nonsense right now.  You are looking like an .......  I almost said Idiot.  Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone.  the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't.  That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude.  Wow, what a fighter.  And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much.  It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.
> 
> But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times.  I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is my request going?
Click to expand...


Not real good.  Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran.  But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.
> 
> Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report
> 
> People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your article is full of holes.  The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range.  The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude.  With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude.  So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system.   But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K.  If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance.  Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded.  You can stop this nonsense right now.  You are looking like an .......  I almost said Idiot.  Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone.  the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't.  That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude.  Wow, what a fighter.  And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much.  It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.
> 
> But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times.  I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is my request going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not real good.  Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran.  But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.
Click to expand...

Taliban is doing well, as far as I know. That´s due to the absence of a determined force the like the Syrian Army.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your article is full of holes.  The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range.  The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude.  With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude.  So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system.   But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K.  If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance.  Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded.  You can stop this nonsense right now.  You are looking like an .......  I almost said Idiot.  Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone.  the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't.  That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude.  Wow, what a fighter.  And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much.  It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.
> 
> But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times.  I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is my request going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not real good.  Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran.  But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taliban is doing well, as far as I know. That´s due to the absence of a determined force the like the Syrian Army.
Click to expand...


And the fact that the US Military is hamstrung in Afghanistan unlike Iraq and Syria.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone.  the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't.  That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude.  Wow, what a fighter.  And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much.  It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.
> 
> But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times.  I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is my request going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not real good.  Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran.  But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taliban is doing well, as far as I know. That´s due to the absence of a determined force the like the Syrian Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the fact that the US Military is hamstrung in Afghanistan unlike Iraq and Syria.
Click to expand...

The means ain´t appropriate. The asymmetrical warfare doesn´t work and the Afghan "army" is a joke.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it.


No they didn't. We've been through this topic before with you, and just like every other thread you participate in your "proof" withers under scrutiny. To you proof is anything that comes from whatever Syrian propaganda sites you can dig up.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics.


Fair enough, but as we've seen in this forum you have massive gaping holes in your understanding of military affairs so you applying logic is a bit suspect.



Bleipriester said:


> The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely.


The F-35 was on a training mission in Israel, and you have no idea how likely a bird strike is in that area so you're just making something up when offering your opinion on how likely a bird strike is.



Bleipriester said:


> If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.


1. Israel has absolutely zero motivation to show anyone a bird strike damage photo, catering to online conspiracy theorists just produces more conspiracies so they are best ignored.

2. Please provide proof that F-35 is bird strike proof, that is an absurd claim. A stork hit at 700 mph can take out a much larger multi-engined plane, I'm genuinely curious what has put into your head that there is something magical about a single engine F-35 that makes it immune to bird damage. Do you believe it has some layer of armor or something?




Bleipriester said:


> The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22


Not according to analysis of their stealth shaping. What actual information do you have (true numbers) on how stealthy an F-35 is compared to an F-22? It's better from some angles, similar head on, and worse at other angles, there is no evidence to support one is stealthier as a whole. Here's the opinion of General Hostage, from Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts

_“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], *but it can beat the F-22 in stealth*.” _

Now it's possible Hostage is talking about active stealth management in addition to the plane itself, since by all accounts F-35 has even better RF situational awareness than F-22 to manage it's potential stealth exposure, but that's exactly what counts in a war zone.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.


While we wait out the crickets chirping on this claim you made that F-35 is magically immune to bird strikes (yes, we know you made that up) you can chew on this....

Bird strike causes more than $2 million in damages to Japan-based Marine Corps F-35B
Birds can be a hazard for civilian and military aircraft, causing millions in damages every year. On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway.

Apparently USMC isn't aware that F-35 is bird strike proof either, only our local Village Idiot has this insider info. Said Village Idiot is using this bullshit claim to support another bullshit claim, so the entire house of turds collapses.


----------



## Bleipriester

DrainBamage said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> 
> 
> 
> While we wait out the crickets chirping on this claim you made that F-35 is magically immune to bird strikes (yes, we know you made that up) you can chew on this....
> 
> Bird strike causes more than $2 million in damages to Japan-based Marine Corps F-35B
> Birds can be a hazard for civilian and military aircraft, causing millions in damages every year. On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway.
> 
> Apparently USMC isn't aware that F-35 is bird strike proof either, only our local Village Idiot has this insider info. Said Village Idiot is using this bullshit claim to support another bullshit claim, so the entire house of turds collapses.
Click to expand...


www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=13106


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
> 
> 
> 
> While we wait out the crickets chirping on this claim you made that F-35 is magically immune to bird strikes (yes, we know you made that up) you can chew on this....
> 
> Bird strike causes more than $2 million in damages to Japan-based Marine Corps F-35B
> Birds can be a hazard for civilian and military aircraft, causing millions in damages every year. On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway.
> 
> Apparently USMC isn't aware that F-35 is bird strike proof either, only our local Village Idiot has this insider info. Said Village Idiot is using this bullshit claim to support another bullshit claim, so the entire house of turds collapses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=13106
Click to expand...


That is just in the windshield.  Most of bird damage will be done in intakes (engine), leading edges and more.  If you built the whole aircraft as strong as the canopy you would need a saturn V to get it off the ground.


----------



## DrainBamage

The document you linked doesn't support your claim that F-35 is bird strike proof. It maintains that test proved:
1. Windshield can withstand 4lb bird strike at 480kts
2. Canopy crown can withstand 4lb bird strike at 350kts
3. Lift fan inlet can withstand 2lb bird strike at 168kts
It also defines  success as not injuring the pilot, damaging the canopy in a manner that incapacitates the pilot, and not preventing plane from egress to safely land.

These qualifications for size, speed, and whether incapacitates clearly don't indicate that an F-35 cannot be damaged by a bird strike, unless you believe all birds weigh less than 4lbs, planes never go above those speeds, and all birds are polite enough to fly right into these qualified areas of the aircraft. Note the Israel F-35 bird strike was a stork, which can weigh up to 20lbs. 

The F-35 in Japan taking 2 million in damage from a bird strike further sink your bullshit that F-35 is bird strike proof.

Are there any threads in this entire forum where you haven't been caught lying?


----------



## Bleipriester

As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.


----------



## DrainBamage

Bleipriester said:


> As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.


I linked to the information just a few posts ago:
_On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway._

I get that English isn't your first language, but how on earth do you read that and decide it's the missing Japanese F-35? Do you just ignore things that aren't convenient to you, can you not read well, or are you just mentally retarded?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.



They found it.  The problem is, it's a deep wide ocean.  They found the wreckage but haven't found the pilot.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They found it.  The problem is, it's a deep wide ocean.  They found the wreckage but haven't found the pilot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. Sad incident.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They found it.  The problem is, it's a deep wide ocean.  They found the wreckage but haven't found the pilot.
Click to expand...


How do you know he is not in the plane, dumbass?


----------



## DrainBamage

The F-35 program death spiral that ManOnTheStreet predicted continues...

Poland plans to buy 32 F-35A fighters: minister - Reuters
WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland plans to buy 32 Lockheed Martin F-35A fighters to replace Soviet-era jets, Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said on Tuesday, amid the growing assertiveness of neighbour Russia. “Today we sent a request for quotation (LOR) to our American partners regarding the purchase of 32 F-35A aircraft along with a logistics and training package,” Blaszczak tweeted.

Finland is probably up next, there selection process to replace their F-18s is this year.


----------



## Manonthestreet

When US Navy and Marine F-35 pilots most need performance, the aircraft becomes erratic

Still Not RDY for prime time . Cannot manuever violently enough to avoid a missle and cannot sustain supersonic without risking damage to the aircraft. Both cat1 deficiencies. Tells me we are constantly being lied to about this craft because I find it implausable they just discovered these


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> When US Navy and Marine F-35 pilots most need performance, the aircraft becomes erratic
> 
> Still Not RDY for prime time . Cannot manuever violently enough to avoid a missle and cannot sustain supersonic without risking damage to the aircraft. Both cat1 deficiencies. Tells me we are constantly being lied to about this craft because I find it implausable they just discovered these



This affects only the B and C models.  Not the A the AF uses.  But it's strictly a software issue and the differences between the airframes.  Not something to worry about greatly but something that needs to be addressed quickly.  And it will be.  New Aircraft being updated almost daily means new capabilities also means new problems to be address.  Much like the Super Hornet, F-15, F-16 Lawn Darts, etc..  Each time, what came out of it was the worlds best Fighter that lasted for many decades.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Lies upon lies ......


----------



## rightwinger

If I were a fighter pilot, I would not want to go up against an F 35


----------



## Manonthestreet

rightwinger said:


> If I were a fighter pilot, I would not want to go up against an F 35


Right now that's just propaganda. There is no real world results yet.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Lies upon lies ......



Yup, you sure do.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were a fighter pilot, I would not want to go up against an F 35
> 
> 
> 
> Right now that's just propaganda. There is no real world results yet.
Click to expand...


The Greatest Bomber that ever was in service never dropped a bomb in anger.  Can you tell me what bomber that was?  The Greatest Bomber that threw the biggest scare into the world that never went into service was?  Can you tell what that one was?  You don't have to actually use something in combat for it to be great.  The fear of the other side of it justifies it's existence.  Right now, the F-35 has the other side jumping out of it's skin.  I'll settle for that.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Lies upon lies ......


Yet you purposely ignore when asked to support the constant stream of lies you spin in this thread. You're the absolute fucking incredible retard who claims F-35 isn't stealthy, and when stealth analysis is brought into the thread showing it's on par with F-22 you're remarkably silent. You're the absolute fucking incredible retard who believes all jets fly around at supersonic speeds and 70k feet, despite clear data showing almost every AA kill has been at middle altitudes and transonic speeds. You're the absolute fucking incredible retard who thinks a max speed of an aircraft is how they fly on combat missions, nobody has drag penalties for tanks and weapons, just look at the wiki page to get max speed in an airshow and that's how fast it can fly all the time in combat missions.



Manonthestreet said:


> Right now that's just propaganda. There is no real world results yet.


Would you like me to (again) link to where you talked up about how dominant F-22 was an air superiority fighter, including talking about kill ratios in exercises that are similar to F-35? Exactly how many planes as F-22 shot down again? You know, the one you've decided is the dominant fighter.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies upon lies ......
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you purposely ignore when asked to support the constant stream of lies you spin in this thread. You're the absolute fucking incredible retard who claims F-35 isn't stealthy, and when stealth analysis is brought into the thread showing it's on par with F-22 you're remarkably silent. You're the absolute fucking incredible retard who believes all jets fly around at supersonic speeds and 70k feet, despite clear data showing almost every AA kill has been at middle altitudes and transonic speeds. You're the absolute fucking incredible retard who thinks a max speed of an aircraft is how they fly on combat missions, nobody has drag penalties for tanks and weapons, just look at the wiki page to get max speed in an airshow and that's how fast it can fly all the time in combat missions.
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now that's just propaganda. There is no real world results yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like me to (again) link to where you talked up about how dominant F-22 was an air superiority fighter, including talking about kill ratios in exercises that are similar to F-35? Exactly how many planes as F-22 shot down again? You know, the one you've decided is the dominant fighter.
Click to expand...


And the F-22 is playing catchup to the F-35 and slowly losing that battle.  But all the other Fighters have quickly lost that battle so it's no big thing.  The F-22 is doing fine and will still be doing fine pirating some of the tech from the F-22.  It can't do all of it since it's a generation behind but it's doing fine and will get us to the Gen 6 fighter quite nicely.  Of course, much of the F-35 will go into the 6th gen fighter.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet's expertly predicted F-35 program death spiral continues...

Trump OKs potential $6.5B F-35 sale to Poland
_The Trump administration has formally notified Congress of a potential $6.5 billion sale of F-35 fighter jets to Poland. Details of the sale, posted to the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) website on Wednesday, include 32 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, equipment and support. The State Department notified lawmakers of the sale on Tuesday._


----------



## DrainBamage

Blah blah F-35 makes no sense for Canada due to harsh environment that far north blah blah one engine blah  ...

First Among All The Partner Nations, Italy Deploys F-35s To Iceland For NATO Air Policing Mission
_The Italian F-35A Lightning II stealth jets belonging to the 13° Gruppo (Squadron) of the 32° Stormo (Wing) will take over the Icelandic Air Policing mission, saveguarding Iceland’s airspace in the next weeks. The Italian aircraft, that have already deployed to Keflavik International Airport, from their homebase at Amendola AB in southeastern Italy, will start flying familiarisation sorties in the next few days. After achieving the NATO certification they will start QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) duties. It’s the second time this year the Italians support the Icelandic Air Policing mission (the fifth in total) and the very first with the 5th Generation aircraft. Noteworthy, the Italian Air Force is the first partner nation to deploy the Joint Strike Fighter on a NATO mission._


----------



## DrainBamage

As an aside, I recall someone in here claiming the program would be canceled before 500 were built.

You can expect that announcement on the 500th production F-35 coming soon before end of this year. There are already more F-35s than F-22s, Gripens, or Rafales. Next year F-35 numbers will also surpass Eurofighter Typhoon.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> As an aside, I recall someone in here claiming the program would be canceled before 500 were built.
> 
> You can expect that announcement on the 500th production F-35 coming soon before end of this year. There are already more F-35s than F-22s, Gripens, or Rafales. Next year F-35 numbers will also surpass Eurofighter Typhoon.


Don't recall that, never underestimate bureaucracy's ability to make bad choices.


----------



## Manonthestreet

BTW they are just now getting around to trying to give them chaff dispensers


----------



## DrainBamage

Yep I expect they'll continue making improvements and adding features for decades to come.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Yep I expect they'll continue making improvements and adding features for decades to come.


Pretty basic feature to lack at this stage of the game


----------



## DrainBamage

You think? I'm not sure chaff is that high a priority for a stealthy jet with a towed decoy and the strongest active/passive electronic defense suite in the air.


----------



## Bleipriester

The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...

Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft



In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.

Nice try, though. One of your best to date.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
Click to expand...

Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
Click to expand...


Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
Click to expand...

Here you are:
Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
Click to expand...


The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them.  Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays.  At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.  

This is from your very own cite.  Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing.  It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them.  Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays.  At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.
> 
> This is from your very own cite.  Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing.  It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.
Click to expand...

Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them.  Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays.  At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.
> 
> This is from your very own cite.  Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing.  It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.
Click to expand...


Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone.  How's that going?  I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective.  Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection.  But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections.  But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is.  In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade.  And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone.  The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough.  Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way.  The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will.  Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22?  You praise the F-22.  This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.


----------



## Pilot1

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
Click to expand...


From your article.



> Camped out amid equines, engineers got word from the Schönefeld tower about when the F-35s were slated to take off. Once the planes were airborne, the company says *it started tracking them and collecting data, using signals from the planes’ ADS-B transponders to correlate the passive sensor readings.*



I have ADS-B In and Out in my plane and can do the same thing as it shows other traffic.  Do you think the F-35 would have it's transponder transmit and receive this type of data during combat ops?   Ahhh, no.


----------



## westwall

Pilot1 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camped out amid equines, engineers got word from the Schönefeld tower about when the F-35s were slated to take off. Once the planes were airborne, the company says *it started tracking them and collecting data, using signals from the planes’ ADS-B transponders to correlate the passive sensor readings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have ADS-B In and Out in my plane and can do the same thing as it shows other traffic.  Do you think the F-35 would have it's transponder transmit and receive this type of data during combat ops?   Ahhh, no.
Click to expand...






Non aviators really have no clue.  I don't like the F35 because I believe it costs far too much for what we are getting.   It is still a pretty good aircraft, it's just not as good as it should be for the money.


----------



## Pilot1

westwall said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camped out amid equines, engineers got word from the Schönefeld tower about when the F-35s were slated to take off. Once the planes were airborne, the company says *it started tracking them and collecting data, using signals from the planes’ ADS-B transponders to correlate the passive sensor readings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have ADS-B In and Out in my plane and can do the same thing as it shows other traffic.  Do you think the F-35 would have it's transponder transmit and receive this type of data during combat ops?   Ahhh, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non aviators really have no clue.  I don't like the F35 because I believe it costs far too much for what we are getting.   It is still a pretty good aircraft, it's just not as good as it should be for the money.
Click to expand...


I really don't know much about it as I've not taken the time to do the research.  All this stuff is way too expensive.  The Military Industrial complex is so powerful that we keep buying more, and more expensive hardware they may not even be necessary in the scenarios that are the most likely present day, and in the future. 

I do see a battlefield, air, and ocean without human combatants in the future using AI.  Which is scary, and also EXPENSIVE.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them.  Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays.  At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.
> 
> This is from your very own cite.  Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing.  It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone.  How's that going?  I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective.  Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection.  But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections.  But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is.  In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade.  And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone.  The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough.  Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way.  The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will.  Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22?  You praise the F-22.  This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.
Click to expand...

It is because the F-22 has an actual purpose. It is more stealthy then the F-35 is or ever can be.
The F-35 is being developed since 1996. That´s long even for a military aircraft. The problems you have with its multi-purpose role will certainly be solved but do you think it´s worth the effort when em-waves detect the plane and S-200 takes it down? The plane is good for limited warfare only.


----------



## Bleipriester

Pilot1 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camped out amid equines, engineers got word from the Schönefeld tower about when the F-35s were slated to take off. Once the planes were airborne, the company says *it started tracking them and collecting data, using signals from the planes’ ADS-B transponders to correlate the passive sensor readings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have ADS-B In and Out in my plane and can do the same thing as it shows other traffic.  Do you think the F-35 would have it's transponder transmit and receive this type of data during combat ops?   Ahhh, no.
Click to expand...

Doesn´t mean they rely on it.


----------



## Pilot1

Bleipriester said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, we know something is there.  We don't know what it is, who it belongs to, what type of aircraft, etc..  But we know something is there.  And it requires all Antennas to be tied together including all civilian antennae.  Wow, some break through, there bucky.  It means you are more likely to shoot down your own fighters than the enemies fighters.  Not something that is useful in a war scenario.
> 
> Nice try, though. One of your best to date.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camped out amid equines, engineers got word from the Schönefeld tower about when the F-35s were slated to take off. Once the planes were airborne, the company says *it started tracking them and collecting data, using signals from the planes’ ADS-B transponders to correlate the passive sensor readings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have ADS-B In and Out in my plane and can do the same thing as it shows other traffic.  Do you think the F-35 would have it's transponder transmit and receive this type of data during combat ops?   Ahhh, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn´t mean they rely on it.
Click to expand...


You're right it doesn't, but is also unclear what they do rely on.  Passive reception of radio and TV waves?  They seemed to have needed the ADS-B info to verify the passive readings.  Why would they need that if their passive readings were accurate?  Just verification?  Possibly.

Also, they were correct in that often tv and radio signals are not present.  Middle of the ocean, high altitude, rural and mountainous areas, unpopulated areas, etc.

Why would tv and radio signals bounce off a stealth aircraft, but not RADAR which are radio waves also.  Radar, *microwave radar, radio detection and ranging, radiolocation.*


----------



## Bleipriester

Pilot1 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article, then. It is possible to ascertain what is flying there. And since the radar isn´t sending anything, you need the waves of something else. These electro-magnetic waves go around each object in a unique way, thus creating a signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camped out amid equines, engineers got word from the Schönefeld tower about when the F-35s were slated to take off. Once the planes were airborne, the company says *it started tracking them and collecting data, using signals from the planes’ ADS-B transponders to correlate the passive sensor readings.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have ADS-B In and Out in my plane and can do the same thing as it shows other traffic.  Do you think the F-35 would have it's transponder transmit and receive this type of data during combat ops?   Ahhh, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn´t mean they rely on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right it doesn't, but is also unclear what they do rely on.  Passive reception of radio and TV waves?  They seemed to have needed the ADS-B info to verify the passive readings.  Why would they need that if their passive readings were accurate?  Just verification?  Possibly.
> 
> Also, they were correct in that often tv and radio signals are not present.  Middle of the ocean, high altitude, rural and mountainous areas, unpopulated areas, etc.
> 
> Why would tv and radio signals bounce off a stealth aircraft, but not RADAR which are radio waves also.  Radar, *microwave radar, radio detection and ranging, radiolocation.*
Click to expand...

If you read the ADS-B, you already got the plane´s position ect. So it makes really no sense for a radar to rely on it.
And yes, they are the same waves but the passiv radar doesn´t receive its reflections but measures its flow around an object. Complex math is required to extract the information.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Bleipriester said:


> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft



Can't' read it in German, sorry.

Could you or someone determine if the article is talking about picking up internal EM leakage while in EMCON or if the F-35's that were "tracked" were emitting active electro-magnetic energy such as through - say - using RADAR, using RADAR altimeters, conversing on radios, sending/receiving telemetry from link systems, etc.

Very important distinction.

Your description sounds a lot like passive detection of active signals.  As an ex-EP-3E Electronic Warfare Operator I can tell you that that is nothing new.  If you think they are going to enter a battlefield with active systems fully transmitting you shouldn't bank in it.  More likely they will go in in EMCON and light-up their targets at the last minute.  First real indication will be missles in the air or bombs on target.  Then back into EMCON and go passive changing heading and altitude quickly.

Why would 2 F-35s traveling to a commercial airshow need 10 inflight refuelings over a 100 kilometer range?  Wouldn't they be using radios, IFF, and RADAR for safety purposing transiting commercial airways?
.
.
.
>>>>


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find me a English Translation and I will.  I don't read Deutche.  It can be a Mary Had  a Little Lamb story for all I know.
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them.  Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays.  At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.
> 
> This is from your very own cite.  Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing.  It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone.  How's that going?  I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective.  Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection.  But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections.  But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is.  In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade.  And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone.  The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough.  Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way.  The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will.  Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22?  You praise the F-22.  This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is because the F-22 has an actual purpose. It is more stealthy then the F-35 is or ever can be.
> The F-35 is being developed since 1996. That´s long even for a military aircraft. The problems you have with its multi-purpose role will certainly be solved but do you think it´s worth the effort when em-waves detect the plane and S-200 takes it down? The plane is good for limited warfare only.
Click to expand...


Actually, the F-22 is LESS stealthy than the F-35 since they went to the matted Stealth coating for the F-35.  And the F-35 can make 2 and 3 flights per day while the F-22 can only make one flight per 3 days since it has to be taken in to have it's stealth covering redone and cured.  

The S-200 hasn't got a clue it's even there.  Maybe the S-400 and 500 has a chance at close range but that's about it.  Or maybe, if you know it's there, a heat seaker has a good chance since it does have a very hot rear quandrant but you have to be close.  Close is within 35 clicks.  And if you are doing a search you have been a target for at least 50 clicks before that.  

It can be shot down.  But the conditions have to be absolutely perfect for the shooter.  And the Shooter is in serious jeopardy long before he gets the chance.  The shootdown of the F-117 showed that.  The Shotgun approach still is a valid, if not an expensive and dangerous, method of shooting down a stealth aircraft.  You have a tendency to shootdown birds you don't want to shoot down in the process.  Ask the Russians on that one.

Limited warfare only?  Israel is making overflights over Iran almost on a daily basis with their F-35s.  The Iranians are going nutz over it.  And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.  Lucky for Iran, the Israelis are just doing camera and sensor runs.  Israel can hit Iran anytime it wishes and there is nothing the Iranians can to stop it.  The Threat of the an Aircraft is better than if you actually have to use it.  And the threat of the F-35 from Israel keeps Iran at least somewhat honest when dealing with Israel.  Sounds like a pretty good Fighter and Attack Bird to me.


----------



## Bleipriester

WorldWatcher said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't' read it in German, sorry.
> 
> Could you or someone determine if the article is talking about picking up internal EM leakage while in EMCON or if the F-35's that were "tracked" were emitting active electro-magnetic energy such as through - say - using RADAR, using RADAR altimeters, conversing on radios, sending/receiving telemetry from link systems, etc.
> 
> Very important distinction.
> 
> Your description sounds a lot like passive detection of active signals.  As an ex-EP-3E Electronic Warfare Operator I can tell you that that is nothing new.  If you think they are going to enter a battlefield with active systems fully transmitting you shouldn't bank in it.  More likely they will go in in EMCON and light-up their targets at the last minute.  First real indication will be missles in the air or bombs on target.  Then back into EMCON and go passive changing heading and altitude quickly.
> 
> Why would 2 F-35s traveling to a commercial airshow need 10 inflight refuelings over a 100 kilometer range?  Wouldn't they be using radios, IFF, and RADAR for safety purposing transiting commercial airways?
> .
> .
> .
> >>>>
Click to expand...

No, the passive radar can detect anything that is large enough. It can be a rock.

Second, the two F-35 flew from America to Germany, needing 10 refuelings, only to not to partake in the air show. 100 kilometer (150 actually) is just the range the Germany company claims to have tracked the planes on.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are:
> Stealthy no more? A German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018 — from a pony farm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them.  Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays.  At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.
> 
> This is from your very own cite.  Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing.  It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone.  How's that going?  I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective.  Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection.  But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections.  But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is.  In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade.  And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone.  The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough.  Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way.  The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will.  Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22?  You praise the F-22.  This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is because the F-22 has an actual purpose. It is more stealthy then the F-35 is or ever can be.
> The F-35 is being developed since 1996. That´s long even for a military aircraft. The problems you have with its multi-purpose role will certainly be solved but do you think it´s worth the effort when em-waves detect the plane and S-200 takes it down? The plane is good for limited warfare only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the F-22 is LESS stealthy than the F-35 since they went to the matted Stealth coating for the F-35.  And the F-35 can make 2 and 3 flights per day while the F-22 can only make one flight per 3 days since it has to be taken in to have it's stealth covering redone and cured.
> 
> The S-200 hasn't got a clue it's even there.  Maybe the S-400 and 500 has a chance at close range but that's about it.  Or maybe, if you know it's there, a heat seaker has a good chance since it does have a very hot rear quandrant but you have to be close.  Close is within 35 clicks.  And if you are doing a search you have been a target for at least 50 clicks before that.
> 
> It can be shot down.  But the conditions have to be absolutely perfect for the shooter.  And the Shooter is in serious jeopardy long before he gets the chance.  The shootdown of the F-117 showed that.  The Shotgun approach still is a valid, if not an expensive and dangerous, method of shooting down a stealth aircraft.  You have a tendency to shootdown birds you don't want to shoot down in the process.  Ask the Russians on that one.
> 
> Limited warfare only?  Israel is making overflights over Iran almost on a daily basis with their F-35s.  The Iranians are going nutz over it.  And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.  Lucky for Iran, the Israelis are just doing camera and sensor runs.  Israel can hit Iran anytime it wishes and there is nothing the Iranians can to stop it.  The Threat of the an Aircraft is better than if you actually have to use it.  And the threat of the F-35 from Israel keeps Iran at least somewhat honest when dealing with Israel.  Sounds like a pretty good Fighter and Attack Bird to me.
Click to expand...

There are strong indicators that no F-35 ever entered Iranian airspace.

Here’s Why The Claim That Two Israeli F-35 Stealth Jets Entered Iranian Airspace Does Not Make Any Sense

And the F-22 is a total stealth plane. It is not just a feature like for the F-35.


----------



## Pilot1

WorldWatcher said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't' read it in German, sorry.
> 
> Could you or someone determine if the article is talking about picking up internal EM leakage while in EMCON or if the F-35's that were "tracked" were emitting active electro-magnetic energy such as through - say - using RADAR, using RADAR altimeters, conversing on radios, sending/receiving telemetry from link systems, etc.
> 
> Very important distinction.
> 
> Your description sounds a lot like passive detection of active signals.  As an ex-EP-3E Electronic Warfare Operator I can tell you that that is nothing new.  If you think they are going to enter a battlefield with active systems fully transmitting you shouldn't bank in it.  More likely they will go in in EMCON and light-up their targets at the last minute.  First real indication will be missles in the air or bombs on target.  Then back into EMCON and go passive changing heading and altitude quickly.
Click to expand...


EP-3E ARIES.  Lockheed Orion (old Electra turboprop)  A flying buddy of mine was a Navy P-3 pilot.  Then you know what they can pick up.  Active signals are a TARGET.



> Why would 2 F-35s traveling to a commercial airshow need 10 inflight refuelings over a 100 kilometer range?  Wouldn't they be using radios, IFF, and RADAR for safety purposing transiting commercial airways?
> >>>>



They would be doing all of that and ADS-B In and Out.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is not stealthy in the German skies. German radar systems that can interpret electro-magnetic signatures followed two F-35 flying to a commercial show in Germany (10 in air refuelings) over 100 kilometers.
> The system is passive, it doesn´t send anything and the pilots won´t know they are observed and can´t locate the radar. The radar requires busy antennas in the area, such as TV or radio stations. We have them all across the country.
> So, when F-35 are about to attack us, we can monitor them until their bombs grow larger...
> 
> Passives Radar: Deutsche Techniker sollen US-Kampfjet enttarnt haben - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wissenschaft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't' read it in German, sorry.
> 
> Could you or someone determine if the article is talking about picking up internal EM leakage while in EMCON or if the F-35's that were "tracked" were emitting active electro-magnetic energy such as through - say - using RADAR, using RADAR altimeters, conversing on radios, sending/receiving telemetry from link systems, etc.
> 
> Very important distinction.
> 
> Your description sounds a lot like passive detection of active signals.  As an ex-EP-3E Electronic Warfare Operator I can tell you that that is nothing new.  If you think they are going to enter a battlefield with active systems fully transmitting you shouldn't bank in it.  More likely they will go in in EMCON and light-up their targets at the last minute.  First real indication will be missles in the air or bombs on target.  Then back into EMCON and go passive changing heading and altitude quickly.
> 
> Why would 2 F-35s traveling to a commercial airshow need 10 inflight refuelings over a 100 kilometer range?  Wouldn't they be using radios, IFF, and RADAR for safety purposing transiting commercial airways?
> .
> .
> .
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the passive radar can detect anything that is large enough. It can be a rock.
> 
> Second, the two F-35 flew from America to Germany, needing 10 refuelings, only to not to partake in the air show. 100 kilometer (150 actually) is just the range the Germany company claims to have tracked the planes on.
Click to expand...


When any Aircraft is in Ferry, their IFF is turned ON.  They need to be "Seen" at all times.  The ONLY time that their IFF will be turned off will be when they are entering combat area.  And the F-35, in order to completely insure being seen, has radar reflectors installed so that radar can "See" them.  In a combat situation, those reflectors are on installed.  Your first hint that they are in your area will be when things start blowing up.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them.  Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays.  At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.
> 
> This is from your very own cite.  Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing.  It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.
> 
> 
> 
> Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone.  How's that going?  I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective.  Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection.  But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections.  But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is.  In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade.  And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone.  The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough.  Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way.  The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will.  Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22?  You praise the F-22.  This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is because the F-22 has an actual purpose. It is more stealthy then the F-35 is or ever can be.
> The F-35 is being developed since 1996. That´s long even for a military aircraft. The problems you have with its multi-purpose role will certainly be solved but do you think it´s worth the effort when em-waves detect the plane and S-200 takes it down? The plane is good for limited warfare only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the F-22 is LESS stealthy than the F-35 since they went to the matted Stealth coating for the F-35.  And the F-35 can make 2 and 3 flights per day while the F-22 can only make one flight per 3 days since it has to be taken in to have it's stealth covering redone and cured.
> 
> The S-200 hasn't got a clue it's even there.  Maybe the S-400 and 500 has a chance at close range but that's about it.  Or maybe, if you know it's there, a heat seaker has a good chance since it does have a very hot rear quandrant but you have to be close.  Close is within 35 clicks.  And if you are doing a search you have been a target for at least 50 clicks before that.
> 
> It can be shot down.  But the conditions have to be absolutely perfect for the shooter.  And the Shooter is in serious jeopardy long before he gets the chance.  The shootdown of the F-117 showed that.  The Shotgun approach still is a valid, if not an expensive and dangerous, method of shooting down a stealth aircraft.  You have a tendency to shootdown birds you don't want to shoot down in the process.  Ask the Russians on that one.
> 
> Limited warfare only?  Israel is making overflights over Iran almost on a daily basis with their F-35s.  The Iranians are going nutz over it.  And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.  Lucky for Iran, the Israelis are just doing camera and sensor runs.  Israel can hit Iran anytime it wishes and there is nothing the Iranians can to stop it.  The Threat of the an Aircraft is better than if you actually have to use it.  And the threat of the F-35 from Israel keeps Iran at least somewhat honest when dealing with Israel.  Sounds like a pretty good Fighter and Attack Bird to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are strong indicators that no F-35 ever entered Iranian airspace.
> 
> Here’s Why The Claim That Two Israeli F-35 Stealth Jets Entered Iranian Airspace Does Not Make Any Sense
> 
> And the F-22 is a total stealth plane. It is not just a feature like for the F-35.
Click to expand...


There is an area in Syria that is hotly contested.  The Iranians have tried to move in Surface to Air installations and had them taken out.  This area is used by the Israelis to inflight refuel to reach Iran.  The Refuelers aren't stealth and would be suseptiple to the SAs.  No, the F-35A does not have quite the range to go everywhere in Iran unrefueled.  But it can go into Iran quite a ways without refueling in a Sensor and Camera mode.  But in a war situation, it would be needed to be refueled as would all the other birds including the loaded down F-15s and 16s.  So Israel keeps that one area in Syria SA clean.  Both Iran and Syria cry to high heaven about it but Russia stays mute about it.

Those flights have been complained about by Iran, itself.  You can try and discount them but Iran says they happen and claims they are against International Law.  Iran complaining about another country violating international law is a real hoot.


----------



## DrainBamage

They tracked stealth planes that were flying with luneberg reflectors, broadcasting their position with ADS-B transponders since in civilian airspace, and they knew exactly when/where they would be beforehand. That sure sounds like a valid real world test.

Congrats on eating up the marketing hype of a company trying to sell a product.

This reminds me of when some other pilots were saying they could see B-2s on radar when it turned out they were flying with radar reflectors, B-2s went on to bomb well defended targets in Iraq and the Balkans with impunity and never even having a shot taken at them from the IADS defending the targets. Serbians thought US was hitting them with waves of cruise missiles, which turned out to be a new type of bomb (JDAM) dropped from B-2s.


----------



## Bleipriester

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone.  How's that going?  I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective.  Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection.  But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections.  But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is.  In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade.  And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone.  The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough.  Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way.  The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will.  Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22?  You praise the F-22.  This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is because the F-22 has an actual purpose. It is more stealthy then the F-35 is or ever can be.
> The F-35 is being developed since 1996. That´s long even for a military aircraft. The problems you have with its multi-purpose role will certainly be solved but do you think it´s worth the effort when em-waves detect the plane and S-200 takes it down? The plane is good for limited warfare only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the F-22 is LESS stealthy than the F-35 since they went to the matted Stealth coating for the F-35.  And the F-35 can make 2 and 3 flights per day while the F-22 can only make one flight per 3 days since it has to be taken in to have it's stealth covering redone and cured.
> 
> The S-200 hasn't got a clue it's even there.  Maybe the S-400 and 500 has a chance at close range but that's about it.  Or maybe, if you know it's there, a heat seaker has a good chance since it does have a very hot rear quandrant but you have to be close.  Close is within 35 clicks.  And if you are doing a search you have been a target for at least 50 clicks before that.
> 
> It can be shot down.  But the conditions have to be absolutely perfect for the shooter.  And the Shooter is in serious jeopardy long before he gets the chance.  The shootdown of the F-117 showed that.  The Shotgun approach still is a valid, if not an expensive and dangerous, method of shooting down a stealth aircraft.  You have a tendency to shootdown birds you don't want to shoot down in the process.  Ask the Russians on that one.
> 
> Limited warfare only?  Israel is making overflights over Iran almost on a daily basis with their F-35s.  The Iranians are going nutz over it.  And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.  Lucky for Iran, the Israelis are just doing camera and sensor runs.  Israel can hit Iran anytime it wishes and there is nothing the Iranians can to stop it.  The Threat of the an Aircraft is better than if you actually have to use it.  And the threat of the F-35 from Israel keeps Iran at least somewhat honest when dealing with Israel.  Sounds like a pretty good Fighter and Attack Bird to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are strong indicators that no F-35 ever entered Iranian airspace.
> 
> Here’s Why The Claim That Two Israeli F-35 Stealth Jets Entered Iranian Airspace Does Not Make Any Sense
> 
> And the F-22 is a total stealth plane. It is not just a feature like for the F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an area in Syria that is hotly contested.  The Iranians have tried to move in Surface to Air installations and had them taken out.  This area is used by the Israelis to inflight refuel to reach Iran.  The Refuelers aren't stealth and would be suseptiple to the SAs.  No, the F-35A does not have quite the range to go everywhere in Iran unrefueled.  But it can go into Iran quite a ways without refueling in a Sensor and Camera mode.  But in a war situation, it would be needed to be refueled as would all the other birds including the loaded down F-15s and 16s.  So Israel keeps that one area in Syria SA clean.  Both Iran and Syria cry to high heaven about it but Russia stays mute about it.
> 
> Those flights have been complained about by Iran, itself.  You can try and discount them but Iran says they happen and claims they are against International Law.  Iran complaining about another country violating international law is a real hoot.
Click to expand...

There is a border crossing between Syria and Iran that the US wants to remain closed. Can you imagine the Beelzeboob raging? Making ISIS, then SDF, all the efforts. And then there is now that open border crossing...

"“Daesh’s attempts to launch attacks came from the American military’s orders because the U.S. has kept Daesh units in the region; they also support them and use them for special plots,” a Syrian field source told the Sputnik News Agency on Monday."
US attempting to block new Syrian-Iraqi crossing from opening: Russian media

"According to local sources, the Syrian and Iranian forces that were positioned northeast of Albukamal city were the targets of an airstrike along the Iraqi border; this attack would lead to several casualties.
No group has claimed responsibility for the attack; however, the Syrian military believes the strikes were carried out by the Israeli Air Force."
Syrian, Iranian forces come under attack by unknown warplanes near Iraqi border

There is no glory for the F-35 to be earned.


----------



## Pilot1

The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18.  Is it better than these?  Yes.


----------



## DrainBamage

Interest AMA from a AH-1Z pilot here: IAmA USMC Cobra Pilot and FAC(A) and back to answer your questions on CAS : WarCollege
Some of the responses mentioned F-35s and might surprise the folks who've been in this thread claiming fast movers can't do CAS or that CAS = gun runs.

_Q: What’s your opinion, as a pilot and CAS-specialist, on CAS-specialised fixed-wings today and for the years to come, and what do you think will be the future for them post A-10?

A: Tricky question. I love the A-10 and I love A-10 pilots, but the writing is on the wall for that platform (much in the way it is for mine depending on who you talk to). There's a saying in aviation that "the man in the box mattters"; which I'd say is the single biggest misconception I see regarding attack aircraft on reddit; the machine helps, but ultimately how effectively a squadron trains to a given mission set, to include CAS, will drive its proficiency. *The best FW shooter I've ever controlled was a F-35 flown by a former Harrier guy*.

Q: In elaboration on the last question - the cannon will almost certainly still be a needed part of the CAS package. With the 30mm considered obsolescent with today’s armor technology, what will the future of calibers for the CAS cannon be, along with its capabilities?

A: I'd disagree with this, or at least as an absolute must. Like you say, it is certainly useless for armor. 25mm is a pretty good intermediate caliber IMO but *frankly I'd rather keep a jet at altitude and far away and plink with APKWS - I'm of the opinion that lightweight PGMs are the way of the future for jets.*

Q: That begs the question ... what makes a good CAS aircraft?

A: My cop-out answer is a good CAS squadron. *My far the best CAS players I've controlled were F-35s flown by former Harrier pilots*. But on a technical side, a good sensor (or sensors) and long legs are the two things that make my life easier. A legacy Hornet checking in with an ATFLIR makes things significantly tougher than an A-10 with a Sniper pod._


Okay "only A-10 with 30mm gun can do CAS" folks, you may return to reading your defense blogs written by "experts" who are fat guys sitting in their basements and have never served in the military.


----------



## DrainBamage

As Japan did earlier this year, Netherlands has decided to up their order after getting their hands on seeing what the plane can do.

The Netherlands to buy nine more F-35s for $1.1 billion

_COLOGNE, Germany – The Dutch government on Tuesday announced plans to purchase nine more of Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets, a move that would bring the country's inventory to 46.The envisioned €1 billion acquisition will “lay the foundation” for a third F-35 squadron in the Dutch air force, a plan that government officials first floated in late 2018, according to a statement posted on the defense ministry website._


----------



## DrainBamage

Korea doubles down as well. They currently have eight F-35s (out of the initial order of 40)

South Korea to buy 20 more F-35 jets

*South Korea to buy 20 more F-35 jets*
_SEOUL — South Korea will begin the second phase of its plan to acquire stealthy fighter jets, code-named F-X III, by acquiring 20 more F-35s, the country’s arms procurement agency has confirmed. The Asian economic power had ordered 40 F-35As for Air Force operations under a 2014 deal worth about $6.4 billion, with the delivery of the fifth-generation fighters starting earlier this year. “The government is preparing to launch the second phase of the F-X III in 2021 for the five years to come,” the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, or DAPA, said in a report to the National Assembly on Oct. 7. About $3.3 billion will go toward buying the additional Lockheed Martin-made aircraft, the report noted.

_
Let's have an encore of the resident expert:



Manonthestreet said:


> yes thats why our friends are abandoning us.


----------



## DrainBamage

DoD and Lockheed Martin have just closed a deal for a massive block buy for next three production lots, bringing flyaway cost of F-35A under 80 million next year and less than 78 million in 2020. This is possible because of the large quantity 478 aircraft over three years, and puts F-35A at lower price point than the last F-18 contract which ran about 78 million per aircraft. 

Bonus = with F-35 you don't need spend millions more for targeting or ECM pods.


----------



## WorldWatcher

DrainBamage said:


> DoD and Lockheed Martin have just closed a deal for a massive block buy for next three production lots, bringing flyaway cost of F-35A under 80 million next year and less than 78 million in 2020. This is possible because of the large quantity 478 aircraft over three years, and puts F-35A at lower price point than the last F-18 contract which ran about 78 million per aircraft.
> 
> Bonus = with F-35 you don't need spend millions more for targeting or ECM pods.




"<<SNIP>>puts F-35A at lower price point than the last F-18 contract which ran about 78 million per aircraft.<<SNIP>>"

While technically correct, and I have no problems with the F-18 or the F-35 as maintaining a technological edge as a force multiplier is perfectly valid.

The correct comparison would have been the F-18 to the F-35C as the C is the carrier version.  Comparing one that has to meet the requirements of carrier operation with one that can operate only from land based runways seems inappropriate.
.
.
.
.^^^^


----------



## DrainBamage

F-35C isn't competing with F-18, USN is continuing with their plans to continue buying Super Hornets and start filling in with F-35C squadrons until carriers have a mix of the two aircraft. They will eventually start replacing the oldest F-18s Super Hornets with whatever 6th gen fighter comes along in the 2030s to serve alongside the F-35Cs.

F-18s are usually seen as part of the usual cast of candidates offered to countries using them as land based fighters, where they do compete against F-35As. Switzerland is currently evaluating F-35, Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Germany will probably be buying F-18s to replace Tornadoes because they are already nuclear certified. Canada is mired in their endless upgrade drama that includes both F-35 and F-18.


----------



## Manonthestreet

“The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”
Even with that 2020 target approaching, analysis to date shows that neither the Marine Corps nor Navy F-35 models are currently “on track” to meet their reliability metrics even as they log more hours, according to the latest assessment. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> “The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”
> Even with that 2020 target approaching, analysis to date shows that neither the Marine Corps nor Navy F-35 models are currently “on track” to meet their reliability metrics even as they log more hours, according to the latest assessment. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?



Your cite has nothing to do with your post.  And we already know the A model will have the highest rate of service and the lowest maintenance rate.  It's the simplest and already equals that of the F-16.  The A is still fairly new and is still having teething problem like shortage of parts but if it had the parts it would would exceed the other fighters in dependability.  

The C is the newest and is still ironing out the kinks and also has a bad parts shortage.  It's more complicated than the A.  Plus, it's a carrier based bird.  It's going to have a lower sortie rate than the F-18.  BTW, when you compare the F-18 with the F-16 the F-18 looks like a flying junk pile.  But that's the way  ALL carrier based birds look compared to land based birds.  

The B model is the most complicated of the three.  And it has the hardest mission.  Like the other two, it also has a shortage of replacement parts.  Right now, the B is flying missions that the C model should be flying plus flying it's own missions.  And it's a front line fighter.  Again, comparing it to the F-16 or even the F-18 for dependability is just wrong.  When you can get a F-18 to fly like the F-35B and be treated as poorly then you have the right to compare it unfavorably.  

I've had experience with shortage of parts.  The F-4 as it neared the end of it's life had a real problem with that.  They still were flying the wings off of it.  Going to war with that shortage may mean that a Squadron of F-4s, you might have a flight of 5 where only one had working Radar.  And they would get the ordinance on target.  The F-4 was the last Front Line Fighter that could do that.  Today, if you lose your radar, you abort.  In fact, there are a lot of things that you will abort today that the old Phantom would just slug along.  No Radar, mount a Weaver 7X scope and do it mark 2 eyeball and listen to the growl.  The way they retired that bird wasn't fitting to a fine lady she was.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I'll fix link tomorrow ..don't know what happened there..seems all the stuff you know isn't so


----------



## DrainBamage

In other news....

Shanahan: Super Hornet on track to meet readiness goals, but F-16s and F-22s still struggling
_“The Navy has made significant progress with the F/A-18s. I think they’re on track to meet the goal in September,” he told lawmakers. However, Shanahan suggested the F-22 and F-16 are unlikely to hit the 80 percent goal, adding that the F-22 “has struggled” and the F-16 “is a bit of a high bar” to clear._

The Air Force’s B-1 bombers are in more dire shape than we thought
_Just six of the Air Force’s fleet of 62 B-1B bombers are now fully mission-capable, Gen. John Hyten told lawmakers Tuesday. That equates to a readiness rate of a little less than 10 percent of the 62 Lancers the Air Force reported it had in fiscal 2018._

Clearly meeting readiness metrics isn't unique to F-35. Don't get me started on the history of F-14s....


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat


Check out the strike decals on this USMC F-35B, makes one laugh at your delusional denial of reality.


----------



## Andylusion

Pilot1 said:


> The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18.  Is it better than these?  Yes.



Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost?   Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget.  But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.

My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million.   You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price.    Can that be justified?

Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.

What do you think?  I assume you have more knowledge on this.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Andylusion said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18.  Is it better than these?  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost?   Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget.  But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.
> 
> My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million.   You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price.    Can that be justified?
> 
> Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.
> 
> What do you think?  I assume you have more knowledge on this.
Click to expand...


You compare the A-10 for just the Ground Attack.  Let's look at just that and then compare it to the REAL ground attacks.

The A-10 has limited range.  With a real combat radius of just about 300 miles, that limits it's usefulness.  And that is with limited fuel and limited ordinance.  If it is in Heavy Load status, it may be reduced as low as 150 mile radius because it has to sacrifice fuel for ordinance heavily.  When it's in FAC or Search and Rescue, it has to limit it's ordinance by a large margin for fuel load to have loiter time.  In order to get that 2 hour loiter time, it may have to sacrifice it's external stores and just use it's gun.  And the Gun has limited uses.  The A-10 can only operate where total air and ground superiority has been established.  Meaning, there are no Air to Air threats and there are not SAMs or AA threats.  Works well against a bunch of ragheads but against something like the Syrians or Iranians, the A-10 would be grounded.  With the A-10 having to get down into the weeds to use it's gun, it would be sitting duck.  Other options would be sought.

Now enter the real Ground Attack Bird for Special Ops.  The AC-130 of 3 different types are the primary ground attack for pinpoint support.  They don't EVER get down into the weeds.  They are above the AA and Ground fire.  They are susceptible to SAMS but that's where other AC comes into play to take them out.  The AC hits targets within 10 feet with some pretty impressive weapons including 25, 30, 40, 105 and even air to surface missiles.  They operate from 20K to 30K in altitude.  Unlike the A-10, the AC works in conjunction with a Command bird and verifies every target before it takes them out.  They can take out a single truck, an entire warehouse, building, even single running people.  All the while, leaving a Mosque totally untouched in the area.  All in a matter of seconds.  The bad guy doesn't see them, they don't hear them.  The bad guy just knows his world just went to hell in a hand basket fast.  The AC also requires that the area be totally swept of bad buy air assets.  And USAF is buying more of these nasty things every year.  They aren't buying anymore A-10s because the AC is many times more effective and is less likely to do friendly fire.  The AC can hit many different target areas in just one flight and has loiter time that is astounding compared to even a lightly loaded A-10.  The A-10 was originally designed as a tank buster but that mission can't be done by the A-10.  The AC was originally designed as a Ground Attack but during Vietnam, it got sidetracked because there weren't any A-10s out yet.  They use the AC for what it was originally designed for and there is NOTHING that can compete with it.

Now, let's talk about contested airspace.  You now have the SAs, AAs and Bad Guy Air Fighters to contend with.  You can't use either the AC or the A-10 without losing almost every one you send into the contested area.  What then?  Do you send them in anyway?  Do you hold the ACs because they cost to much and send in the lower cost A-10s because they are cheap?  No, you use the other assets like the F-16, F-18 and F-15E if you don't need stealth.  Or you may use the B-52 or the B-1.  All of these can launch smart weapons that can be controlled by external sources whether it be by other AC like Command Birds or even troops on the ground.  It ain't your Grand Daddies War anymore.

But if you need Stealth, then there are only two AC in existance that can do that job and that's the F-22 and the F-35.  It's not that they are invisible, they can just get closer without being detected and hit their targets more accurate because they can get closer.  That means that Ground Support is already being done by the F-35 with the F-22 flying Top Cap.  Or you may have the F-15C flying Top Cap over the F-35B.  Or even the F-18 flying Top Cap.  The Top Cap is out of harms way and are just there to keep the bad guys fighters away from your ground attack birds.  It works.  

Why do they fly the A-10 when they do?  Simple.  When the perimeters are right, the A-10 is there and it's paid for.  In other words, why the hell not.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18.  Is it better than these?  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost?   Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget.  But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.
> 
> My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million.   You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price.    Can that be justified?
> 
> Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.
> 
> What do you think?  I assume you have more knowledge on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You compare the A-10 for just the Ground Attack.  Let's look at just that and then compare it to the REAL ground attacks.
> 
> The A-10 has limited range.  With a real combat radius of just about 300 miles, that limits it's usefulness.  And that is with limited fuel and limited ordinance.  If it is in Heavy Load status, it may be reduced as low as 150 mile radius because it has to sacrifice fuel for ordinance heavily.  When it's in FAC or Search and Rescue, it has to limit it's ordinance by a large margin for fuel load to have loiter time.  In order to get that 2 hour loiter time, it may have to sacrifice it's external stores and just use it's gun.  And the Gun has limited uses.  The A-10 can only operate where total air and ground superiority has been established.  Meaning, there are no Air to Air threats and there are not SAMs or AA threats.  Works well against a bunch of ragheads but against something like the Syrians or Iranians, the A-10 would be grounded.  With the A-10 having to get down into the weeds to use it's gun, it would be sitting duck.  Other options would be sought.
> 
> Now enter the real Ground Attack Bird for Special Ops.  The AC-130 of 3 different types are the primary ground attack for pinpoint support.  They don't EVER get down into the weeds.  They are above the AA and Ground fire.  They are susceptible to SAMS but that's where other AC comes into play to take them out.  The AC hits targets within 10 feet with some pretty impressive weapons including 25, 30, 40, 105 and even air to surface missiles.  They operate from 20K to 30K in altitude.  Unlike the A-10, the AC works in conjunction with a Command bird and verifies every target before it takes them out.  They can take out a single truck, an entire warehouse, building, even single running people.  All the while, leaving a Mosque totally untouched in the area.  All in a matter of seconds.  The bad guy doesn't see them, they don't hear them.  The bad guy just knows his world just went to hell in a hand basket fast.  The AC also requires that the area be totally swept of bad buy air assets.  And USAF is buying more of these nasty things every year.  They aren't buying anymore A-10s because the AC is many times more effective and is less likely to do friendly fire.  The AC can hit many different target areas in just one flight and has loiter time that is astounding compared to even a lightly loaded A-10.  The A-10 was originally designed as a tank buster but that mission can't be done by the A-10.  The AC was originally designed as a Ground Attack but during Vietnam, it got sidetracked because there weren't any A-10s out yet.  They use the AC for what it was originally designed for and there is NOTHING that can compete with it.
> 
> Now, let's talk about contested airspace.  You now have the SAs, AAs and Bad Guy Air Fighters to contend with.  You can't use either the AC or the A-10 without losing almost every one you send into the contested area.  What then?  Do you send them in anyway?  Do you hold the ACs because they cost to much and send in the lower cost A-10s because they are cheap?  No, you use the other assets like the F-16, F-18 and F-15E if you don't need stealth.  Or you may use the B-52 or the B-1.  All of these can launch smart weapons that can be controlled by external sources whether it be by other AC like Command Birds or even troops on the ground.  It ain't your Grand Daddies War anymore.
> 
> But if you need Stealth, then there are only two AC in existance that can do that job and that's the F-22 and the F-35.  It's not that they are invisible, they can just get closer without being detected and hit their targets more accurate because they can get closer.  That means that Ground Support is already being done by the F-35 with the F-22 flying Top Cap.  Or you may have the F-15C flying Top Cap over the F-35B.  Or even the F-18 flying Top Cap.  The Top Cap is out of harms way and are just there to keep the bad guys fighters away from your ground attack birds.  It works.
> 
> Why do they fly the A-10 when they do?  Simple.  When the perimeters are right, the A-10 is there and it's paid for.  In other words, why the hell not.
Click to expand...


I intentially left out the B-2.  At 2 billion a copy and so few in numbers, don't look for them to be used for ground attack very often.  They are very capable of it but the cost is ridiculous.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Two decades into F-35 development and production, prime contractors Lockheed Martin and engine maker Pratt and Whitney would like to sign multi-year production contracts.

However, the F-35 program is still plagued by what Garamendi called high operating costs, inadequate repair capacity, spare part shortages and poor replacement part reliabilities. Ongoing challenges running the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which was created to deliver parts to aircraft maintainers, are compounding the spare parts problems. Lawmakers Cooling on F-35 Multi-Year Production Contracts - USNI News  Two decades and still not rdy for prime time


----------



## DrainBamage

Andylusion said:


> My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million.   You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price.    Can that be justified?


Actual fly-away costs are hard to pin down but the last contract for F-16s (Bahrain?) they ran about 65 million each. A new F-18 is about 78 million.

Still cheaper than an F-35 but nothing like the 25 million you're talking about, aircraft advance in capabilities over time, and with that comes the cost. 



Andylusion said:


> Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.


They are paying almost this much per plane to replace the wings on A-10s, which pretty much tells you how unrealistic this 18 million is in 2019. It also isn't superior in CAS, it depends on what aspect of CAS is being presented.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Two decades and still not rdy for prime time


They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.

If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades and still not rdy for prime time
> 
> 
> 
> They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.
> 
> If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.
Click to expand...

They've dropped some bombs for proppo…..2 decades and still cant go full rate. Think how many F-22 all that waste could have purchased


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Two decades into F-35 development and production, prime contractors Lockheed Martin and engine maker Pratt and Whitney would like to sign multi-year production contracts.
> 
> However, the F-35 program is still plagued by what Garamendi called high operating costs, inadequate repair capacity, spare part shortages and poor replacement part reliabilities. Ongoing challenges running the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which was created to deliver parts to aircraft maintainers, are compounding the spare parts problems. Lawmakers Cooling on F-35 Multi-Year Production Contracts - USNI News  Two decades and still not rdy for prime time



Or they can do it the old fashioned way and let the Techs handle it.  That's what the Marines and USAF is doing while waiting for for the software to catch up.  We were flying back from Sondy to Anchorage and we had an engine that was out of Sync.  Ever hear a sledge hammer pounding on the side of an airplane?  I adjusted the Props without the high dollar test equipment by ear.  Took me about 20 minutes but I got the pounding stopped.  You believe the Techs rely soley on their high tech gear?  It's nice but a good tech can get by without it.  

Right now, the B model is flying missions that should really be flown by the C but the C isn't mission ready.  They are flying the wings off the B.  When you do that you are going to have a high breakage rate.  But it's getting the job done in not only it's missions but the C model missions as well.  The F-35B has turned into money well spent doing things that a F-18 can't do.  When the C model comes online and they get the parts problem for the C up to speed, the pressure on the B will help the mission rate of the B go back to the plus 70 easy.  Right now, the B is flying real time combat missions.  And chalking up ground kills left and right.  unlike the other type of birds, it does them with NO fear of shoulder fired surface to air missiles.  

The A is doing it's job.  It's stationed in forward theaters.  It's job is to scare the living hell out of North Korea, China and Russia just by being there.  And it's doing a very good job.  The A isn't seeing combat but the other sides aren't pushing to see just how good it is either because they don't have a thing to stop it.  Even with a parts shortage, the A is still flying with a 70 plus rating making it one of the best fighters in the world.  

The F-35A can do 3 mission a day.  The deciding factor is the Pilot.  The F-22 can only do one.  Plus, the biggest weakness of both the F-35A and the F-22 is the stealth covering.  

The difference is, the F-35A's covering is baked into it's panels that are held into place by fittings.  When one gets damaged, they just pull the panel and replace it with another one and turn the bird.  The Panel is sent to the field maintenance shop for repair.  It takes about 3 days for the repairs on the panel to cure.

The F-22 has it's stealth painted on with a special paint.  When it gets damaged, the whole bird has to go to the maintenance shop for those 3 days.  

Drumstick already pointed out the cost of the F-35A versus the F-16.  The F-35A costs less than 90 million while a full tilt F-16 is pushing into the plus 80 million these days.  Against a quality Air Force, the F-16 is obsolete while the F-35 makes the other guy obsolete.  In that environment, the F-16 may get a 1 to one or maybe (being kind) a 1 to 2 while the F-35 is going to get at least a 1 to 20.  That 10 mil you saved by buying new F16s ends up meaning you are going to have to buy at least 10 new F-16s to make up for not buying every single F-35A.  So the cost savings of the F-35A is very evident.

And since you can't buy any more F-22s you are going to need the F-35A to make up the difference there.  What good is your brand new SU-35 when it keeps blowing up by an unseen enemy even if you know he's there but you can't do a damned thing about it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades and still not rdy for prime time
> 
> 
> 
> They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.
> 
> If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They've dropped some bombs for proppo…..2 decades and still cant go full rate. Think how many F-22 all that waste could have purchased
Click to expand...


The A has gone full rate.  It can hit a moving zig zag truck.  Plus about anything else you can ask from it.  It still has more range without drop tanks than a F-16, flies faster than a loaded F-16, penetrates further in without detection, burns out or jams the bad guys electronics,    what more can you ask?  And it scares the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans shitless without firing a shot.  Any time you have a weapons system so good that you don't have to use it then it's pretty damned good and should be kept.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades and still not rdy for prime time
> 
> 
> 
> They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.
> 
> If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.
Click to expand...


The F-22 is lucky if it can make a sortie every other day.  The Bone is well below 50 rating and getting worse.  It's on it's way out fast.  Right now, the Buff is being depended on heavily like it always has been.  In the end, the B-1 and B-2 will be out of the inventory and the 1960s vintage Buff will still be handling the bulk of the load even with the new B-21 coming into the inventory.  One of these days, the Buff will have to have a new nick changed to the Millennium.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Gennadievich said:


> Americans can buy planes, tanks, missiles and submarines from Russia.
> We will sell them to you to fight terrorism in the desert, especially submarines.
> -----------
> They are inexpensive and of higher quality than American



When you register with Grubhub we might consider it.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> They've dropped some bombs for proppo…..2 decades and still cant go full rate. Think how many F-22 all that waste could have purchased


Clearly this isn't true, given that the overwhelming majority of the strike missions they've been churning haven't been released to the press. There was some fanfare for the first strike mission (as there is for any plane that first sees combat) but since then it's been pretty silent, just count the strike decals on that bird.


----------



## Pilot1

Andylusion said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18.  Is it better than these?  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost?   Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget.  But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.
> 
> My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million.   You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price.    Can that be justified?
> 
> Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.
> 
> What do you think?  I assume you have more knowledge on this.
Click to expand...


Well, everything is a balance and compromise due to cost, and other factors.  The F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 will be around for quite some time.  The AV-8B Harrier will not.  One never knows how many F-35's and F-22's will be built, and put into front line service.  Will they ever see actual combat, or just be an effective deterrent?   BTW, I am a big fan of the A-10.  The Russians have a saying, "Quantity has a Quality all its own", so more is better. 

I really don't know which is better.  Fewer of the latest and greatest or a lot of less capable stuff.  I hope we never have to find out.


----------



## DrainBamage

Interesting different take on readiness:

F-35 Mission Capable Rates Up for All Variants, Lord Tells HASC

_Mission capable rates have jumped for all variants of the F-35 over the past year, Pentagon acquisition and sustainment chief Ellen Lord told a panel of the House Armed Services Committee on Nov. 13. The improvement came even as the size of the fleet expanded considerably, she said.“As the F-35 fleet has grown, aircraft readiness has improved,” Lord said in prepared testimony for the HASC readiness subcommittee. The fleet—now 458 airplanes across the US services and international partners and customers—grew 50 percent larger in 2019 than it was a year ago, and the F-35 enterprise “is on track to produce 150 percent more aircraft than we built two years ago.”

Across the US fleet, mission capable rates—the metric that shows how many aircraft in a fleet are available for action at any given time—*“increased from 55 percent in October 2018 to 73 percent in September 2019,” she wrote. Marine Corps F-35B readiness leaped from 44 percent to 68 percent during that period, Air Force F-35A jets improved from 66 percent to 75 percent, and Navy jets, which only became operational this year, are over 75 percent mission capable, Lord asserted*.

She and F-35 Joint Program Office officials have in recent months touted an increased availability of parts as the key element in the improved readiness of the fleet, which is still not quite hitting the 80 percent mission capable rate mandated by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis a year ago._


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

DrainBamage said:


> F-35C isn't competing with F-18, USN is continuing with their plans to continue buying Super Hornets and start filling in with F-35C squadrons until carriers have a mix of the two aircraft. They will eventually start replacing the oldest F-18s Super Hornets with whatever 6th gen fighter comes along in the 2030s to serve alongside the F-35Cs.
> 
> F-18s are usually seen as part of the usual cast of candidates offered to countries using them as land based fighters, where they do compete against F-35As. Switzerland is currently evaluating F-35, Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Germany will probably be buying F-18s to replace Tornadoes because they are already nuclear certified. Canada is mired in their endless upgrade drama that includes both F-35 and F-18.



The Germans do not have nuclear weapons.  Why do they need a a nuclear certified aircraft?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Gennadievich said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  The Russians have a saying, "Quantity has a Quality all its own", so more is better.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first time I hear such a saying ..
> Maybe it means that "Quantity changes quality." But this is the topic of materialism.
> The Russians have a different saying, "Genius lies in simplicity," which means that simpler things must be done to get a good effect.
> A typical example: Americans spent millions of dollars to invent a pen that writes in zero gravity in space. The Russians did not spend money, but used a chemical pencil.
> 
> Sorry, I'm talking with google translator
Click to expand...


I am aware of the Russian Lead Space Pencil.  It just works.  

We did a wargame in Wiesbadden (spelling) in 1980.  We ended up being the Soviet AF.  We were very much aware we were behind the technology power curve.  But we had a tremendous quantity advantage.  In the initial stages, that quantitative advantage meant miles and miles of advance.  The first 3 days was critical.  After that, the US would start bringing in it's massive arsenal of quality resources from around the world and we would lose that advantage.  The idea was to hurt them enough where they would have trouble deploying those resources later.  We did exactly that.  When we go through, there was no front line fighters from either side, the Soviets controlled the Air Space of Greater Europe.  It was junk against junk at that point.  A-10s versus 1950s Soviet Jets.  We had to prove to the Moderators that an A-10 could NEVER win a battle against a subsonic soviet attack plane on a one on one basis first.  We did that.  We already knew that since we had previously proved that an A-7 could take out an A-10 100% of the time.  But it wasn't a one on one in the game.  It was closer to one on 50.  

Today, the Russians don't have that huge quantity advantage to make up for the quality advantage that the US is slowly growing back to.  The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes.  Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers.  But the are being met by high numbers of F-15s that are their equals backed up by superior F-22s.  And the number of F-35s keeps growing each year by  a larger number than even the Russians are buying the SU-35.  

Ground is another issue.  The Russians have a high degree of "Quantity" that isn't that far below the quality of Nato.  Yes, some systems are considered better but overall, it's still less quality.  But since ground resources are very difficult to mobilize over long distances, the edge goes to Russia for .....and we are right back to that first 3 days equation.  

Overall, in the first 3 days, the Russians can take ground.  How much?  It all depends on just how many people they are willing to lose doing it.  But at the end of 3 days, it's going to be a standstill.  No winner.


----------



## DrainBamage

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The Germans do not have nuclear weapons.  Why do they need a a nuclear certified aircraft?


NATO nuclear sharing agreement. See Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes.  Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers.


The joke of the SU-35 is that it was originally meant to be an interim solution that would eventually serve primarily for the export market until they got their glorious 5th generation fighter.

Of course their 5th gen program effectively collapsed with SU-57 being built in only token numbers, so now Russia is planning on going well into the 2030s with their primary fighter aircraft being basically an upgrade of the SU-27 that first flew in the 1970s. Meanwhile they don't even have the economy to produce it in high numbers, there have already been more 5th generation F-35s produced in 2019 alone than the total number of operational SU-35s serving Russia's military. 

Going forward they are going to build 10 SU-35s per year, USA will be surpass with that by the 3rd week of January.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes.  Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> The joke of the SU-35 is that it was originally meant to be an interim solution that would eventually serve primarily for the export market until they got their glorious 5th generation fighter.
> 
> Of course their 5th gen program effectively collapsed with SU-57 being built in only token numbers, so now Russia is planning on going well into the 2030s with their primary fighter aircraft being basically an upgrade of the SU-27 that first flew in the 1970s. Meanwhile they don't even have the economy to produce it in high numbers, there have already been more 5th generation F-35s produced in 2019 alone than the total number of operational SU-35s serving Russia's military.
> 
> Going forward they are going to build 10 SU-35s per year, USA will be surpass with that by the 3rd week of January.
Click to expand...


One of these days, their SU-27s and Mig-29s are going to be in the same plight as our F-15Cs and F-16Cs and the cost of operation will go clean out the window.  We have replacements.  They only can afford 10 per year.

They keep trying to sell the F-15E short.  But we already know the F-15C can turn and burn with a Mig-29 which is a tighter dog fighter than the SU-27.  So the new F-15EX is still a viable war bird to replace the C model F-15 until something else comes along.  At least USAF can get the flying dead ones of the F-15Cs off the tarmac.


----------



## Manonthestreet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...mes-head-lawmaker-threatens-hold-up-contract/
However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet. The overall F-35 fleet was capable of performing all of its tasked missions only about a third of the time, said Diana Maurer, defense capabilities and management director for the Government Accountability Office, on Wednesday.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Gennadievich said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes.  Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> The joke of the SU-35 is that it was originally meant to be an interim solution that would eventually serve primarily for the export market until they got their glorious 5th generation fighter.
> 
> Of course their 5th gen program effectively collapsed with SU-57 being built in only token numbers, so now Russia is planning on going well into the 2030s with their primary fighter aircraft being basically an upgrade of the SU-27 that first flew in the 1970s. Meanwhile they don't even have the economy to produce it in high numbers, there have already been more 5th generation F-35s produced in 2019 alone than the total number of operational SU-35s serving Russia's military.
> 
> Going forward they are going to build 10 SU-35s per year, USA will be surpass with that by the 3rd week of January.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of these days, their SU-27s and Mig-29s are going to be in the same plight as our F-15Cs and F-16Cs and the cost of operation will go clean out the window.  We have replacements.  They only can afford 10 per year.
> 
> They keep trying to sell the F-15E short.  But we already know the F-15C can turn and burn with a Mig-29 which is a tighter dog fighter than the SU-27.  So the new F-15EX is still a viable war bird to replace the C model F-15 until something else comes along.  At least USAF can get the flying dead ones of the F-15Cs off the tarmac.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm interested in your sources of information.
> I believe this is the beginning of 2019.
> Show your sources
> of course i know american sources you have to confirm
Click to expand...


I believe those sources have already been given in here a few times in response to the Lighting II Haters.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...mes-head-lawmaker-threatens-hold-up-contract/
> However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet. The overall F-35 fleet was capable of performing all of its tasked missions only about a third of the time, said Diana Maurer, defense capabilities and management director for the Government Accountability Office, on Wednesday.



It's a bit of a mess to say the least.  One that does need to be address and address fast.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Gennadievich said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those sources have already been given in here a few times in response to the Lighting II Haters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for more-or-less smart Americans - The Main Source of War in American Mass Media is *National Interest*
> For other Americans - CNN
> -----------
> As a rule, American media are late with information.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> Then I repeat my question ..
> Give me the sources of your information.
Click to expand...


You have access to google.  You use.  You also have access to the search on this Board.  Use it.  Do your own homework.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet.


Really? Of USA's latest aircraft designs F-35, F-22, and B-2 which haven't had problems with availability when brand new?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Of USA's latest aircraft designs F-35, F-22, and B-2 which haven't had problems with availability when brand new?
Click to expand...


At Bitburg, AB in Germany, we were the first Forward Operational F-15 Air Base.  The best we could do until the C model was introduced and the As were upgraded was 33% and that was the best in USAF.  This was offset by the fact that the F-15 could take out 4 enemy aircraft in a fight.  Meaning, it would win.  Nothing the Soviets had was even close to being it's equal.  But it had severe teething problems like every other new weapon system.  When the C and the upgraded As to C was done, it jumped all the way to just under 70% and became the world class fighter it has would always be.  It took it 6 years of Operation  to get to that point.


----------



## Bleipriester

Looks like that Turkey is out of the F-35 program.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bleipriester said:


> Looks like that Turkey is out of the F-35 program.



They wanted the S-400, they got them.  Then they don't get the F-35.  Simple as that.  If you have both, you can figure out how to defeat the F-35 and that just won't do.


----------



## rylah

The game changer is the F-22, and the US won't sell it to anyone.
However with all the problems, this is Russian AA and F-35 in action...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

rylah said:


> The game changer is the F-22, and the US won't sell it to anyone.
> However with all the problems, this is Russian AA and F-35 in action...



I remember that clip.  But when the time line was checked, the Israeli Aircraft had long since left the area.  It was a show of force only by the Syrians.  They tried to make it look to their people that they were actually doing something.


----------



## rylah

Daryl Hunt said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The game changer is the F-22, and the US won't sell it to anyone.
> However with all the problems, this is Russian AA and F-35 in action...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember that clip.  But when the time line was checked, the Israeli Aircraft had long since left the area.  It was a show of force only by the Syrians.  They tried to make it look to their people that they were actually doing something.
Click to expand...


What time line?
You see the attack in the background while the AA's hit the neighborhoods.
Let Syrians tell all about how hitting their own homes in Damascus with multiple rockets
is a way to look good.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> what have the Israelis learned





Manonthestreet said:


> I would guess the Israelis have learned some unpleasant truth about it


You tell me what Israel has learned. From last week:

Israel Seeks New U.S. Military Aircraft
_In June 2019, the Israel defense ministry issued an official request for information for the Boeing F-15X, and a price and availability (P&A) request for the Lockheed Martin F-35I. Israel already has 50 F-35Is on order and has had a long-standing intention to buy 25 more, but *recent reports suggest that the Israel Air Force intends to buy 75 additional F-35Is*_

Just as Japan went and decided to buy 105 more F-35s after getting their hands on some from their original order of 42.




Manonthestreet said:


> Once in a dogfight it has no way to exit until someone is dead or out of ammo because its too slow


This "too slow" stuff never fails to amuse, you still haven't responded to information hilighting the maximum combat load speed of various 4th gen aircraft and how they compare to the mach 1.6 an F-35 can reach. Have you ever seen an F-15/F-16/F-18 flying in combat without external fuel tanks? I haven't either.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> what have the Israelis learned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess the Israelis have learned some unpleasant truth about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me what Israel has learned. From last week:
> 
> Israel Seeks New U.S. Military Aircraft
> _In June 2019, the Israel defense ministry issued an official request for information for the Boeing F-15X, and a price and availability (P&A) request for the Lockheed Martin F-35I. Israel already has 50 F-35Is on order and has had a long-standing intention to buy 25 more, but *recent reports suggest that the Israel Air Force intends to buy 75 additional F-35Is*_
> 
> Just as Japan went and decided to buy 105 more F-35s after getting their hands on some from their original order of 42.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once in a dogfight it has no way to exit until someone is dead or out of ammo because its too slow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This "too slow" stuff never fails to amuse, you still haven't responded to information hilighting the maximum combat load speed of various 4th gen aircraft and how they compare to the mach 1.6 an F-35 can reach. Have you ever seen an F-15/F-16/F-18 flying in combat without external fuel tanks? I haven't either.
Click to expand...


In the real world, if one bird disengages, the fight is over.  Since both birds will have to drop their tanks to fight, the fight will consume a large amount of gas.  Bingo is going to happen in a matter of minutes on both sides.  There will be no running down the other side if they are slower.  If you try that with a conventional fighter, you are going to be walking home whether you got the kill or not.  The only fighter that might be able to get away with that would be the F-15 or the F-22.  The F-15 can do Mach 1.8 in full battle trim and the F-22 can do over Mach 2 easily.  All others will have to just go home.  Chances are, even the F-15 and the F-22 will just go home as well.

Flying is so much more fun than walking to a fighter pilot.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Rumor Poland will dump F-35 ….too expensive....unreliable and wont make half its service life


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Rumor Poland will dump F-35 ….too expensive....unreliable and wont make half its service life



Hey, can I start a rumor too?  How about Romania is trying to purchase more Czeck ME-109s again since their Mig-21s are crashing.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Rumor Poland will dump F-35 ….too expensive....unreliable and wont make half its service life


F-35 has been winning every fighter competition it's entered, and I bet that drives you crazy.

Singapore now ordering 12, and Greece has been making inquiries. I remember the good ole days from years back when you were claiming international partners were all dropping out and program was in a death spiral. Idiot.


----------



## DrainBamage

I saw some blurbs from Norwegian an Dutch pilots who have been taking F-35 through it's paces, reminded me of all the complaining manonthestreet has been nonsensically bleating on about the speed and range of F-35.


De 5 største mytene om F-35

_"With internal weapons and full fuel tanks, the F-35 will be able to fly at greater speed, maneuver more powerfully and fly farther than almost any other fighter aircraft with similar equipment available on the market today."

"This also applies to so-called cut-off missions in the northern areas. First, the F-35 will be able to fly longer and at the same speed as today's F-16 on such missions thanks to large internal fuel tanks and the ability to carry weapons internally."_


Roer om bij de luchtmacht

_"Like the F-16, the F-35 can deliver excellent close air support. In bad weather, however, it can also detect ground targets through the clouds. The F-16 can't do that. Thanks to the good aerodynamic properties and the extra amount of internal fuel, the Lightning II can also remain "on station" for longer, "he summarizes effortlessly."

(on sound versus existing F-16s) "The F-35 is faster at altitude and can fly on for longer, so that the sound fades away faster and fewer take-offs and landings are required."_



And finally from HOC testimony from the neverending Canada clusterfuck:

Evidence - NDDN (40-3) - No. 24 - House of Commons of Canada

_Our current aircraft has 16,000 pounds of fuel with three external fuel tanks. The conventional take-off and landing variant of the F-35 with internal fuel only is 18,500 pounds, so it has significantly more fuel just internally. It will have significantly more range and we can also put external tanks on the F-35. It will have significantly more range than we currently have, which is an incredibly important element when we look at flying across the far north of Canada._


----------



## DrainBamage

And Manonthestreet's "wisdom" on the altitude of F-35:



Manonthestreet said:


> no it means f-35 being low altitude sled will need to shoot up shortening its alrdy outranged missles




Moderne luftkamp; The Right Stuff, Top Gun eller noe helt annet? - Kampflybloggen

_"With the F-35 we get more of this, compared to what we are used to today. Discovering how much more was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment,* the F-35 effortlessly operates 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 manages*, without the use of an afterburner. The speed of the cruise is simply 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16 , I have to use the afterburner and take off speed before a missile shot.* F-35 cruiser both faster and higher. That's why I'm ready to shoot far at any time*."_


----------



## Silver Cat

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like that Turkey is out of the F-35 program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted the S-400, they got them.  Then they don't get the F-35.  Simple as that.  If you have both, you can figure out how to defeat the F-35 and that just won't do.
Click to expand...

 Can't they figure out how to defeat S-400? Or is it absolutely impossible?


----------



## DrainBamage

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like that Turkey is out of the F-35 program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted the S-400, they got them.  Then they don't get the F-35.  Simple as that.  If you have both, you can figure out how to defeat the F-35 and that just won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't they figure out how to defeat S-400? Or is it absolutely impossible?
Click to expand...

Why would it be impossible? Anything can be defeated.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Rumor Poland will dump F-35 ….too expensive....unreliable and wont make half its service life


Has anything you've come up with in this thread turned out to be true? Like ever? Even once? 

From yesterday: 

_WARSAW, Poland — Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said Jan. 22 that next week Poland “will finalize the deal on the purchase of F-35” Lightning II fighter jets. The negotiations to buy 32 aircraft from the U.S. “are almost complete” and “the first units will be ready [for delivery] in 2024,” Blaszczak told local broadcaster Polish Radio. In what could be the largest defense contract to be signed in Central-Eastern Europe this year, Poland is set to become the first user of Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation fighter jets in the region, adding the aircraft to its fleet of 48 F-16s._

*Negotiations ‘almost complete’ on Poland’s buy of 32 F-35s, defense minister says


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rumor Poland will dump F-35 ….too expensive....unreliable and wont make half its service life
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything you've come up with in this thread turned out to be true? Like ever? Even once?
> 
> From yesterday:
> 
> _WARSAW, Poland — Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said Jan. 22 that next week Poland “will finalize the deal on the purchase of F-35” Lightning II fighter jets. The negotiations to buy 32 aircraft from the U.S. “are almost complete” and “the first units will be ready [for delivery] in 2024,” Blaszczak told local broadcaster Polish Radio. In what could be the largest defense contract to be signed in Central-Eastern Europe this year, Poland is set to become the first user of Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation fighter jets in the region, adding the aircraft to its fleet of 48 F-16s._
> 
> *Negotiations ‘almost complete’ on Poland’s buy of 32 F-35s, defense minister says
Click to expand...


If man was meant to fly he would have been born with a jet engine up his ass.  Eat more Burritos.


----------



## TDontTouchMyCigars

I don't know about that.

I do know that Israel bought dozens of those and took every detail out and put an Israel tech in it


----------



## Daryl Hunt

TDontTouchMyCigars said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> I do know that Israel bought dozens of those and took every detail out and put an Israel tech in it



They didn't take every detail out.  When the US exports something high tech, some of the tech is left out and each country has to role their own or hire someone to do it for them.  The real "Sooper Secrit" stuff isn't allowed out to other countries.  Israel is just very good at putting their own back in.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35’s Gun That Can’t Shoot Straight Adds to Its Roster of Flaws


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35’s Gun That Can’t Shoot Straight Adds to Its Roster of Flaws



And as late as 1980 the F-15A had been in service for about 6 years and was still experiencing cracked airframes near the tail section.  If all that was wrong with the F-15A was the gun mounts then we would have been ecstatic. Such was not the case.  If we used the F-15A model with all it's flaws and didn't fix them, we would have been better off scrapping the damned thing.  It's one thing to fly it at Ogden with experienced pilots but another to put it in the hands of young pilots in the field.  And the F-15E/EX is probably one of the most rounded and deadly fighters today short of the F-35A and the F-22.  So, with these problems in the field, I guess we need to just scrap the plane and move onto something else.  Wait, there isn't anything else.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35’s Gun That Can’t Shoot Straight Adds to Its Roster of Flaws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as late as 1980 the F-15A had been in service for about 6 years and was still experiencing cracked airframes near the tail section.  If all that was wrong with the F-15A was the gun mounts then we would have been ecstatic. Such was not the case.  If we used the F-15A model with all it's flaws and didn't fix them, we would have been better off scrapping the damned thing.  It's one thing to fly it at Ogden with experienced pilots but another to put it in the hands of young pilots in the field.  And the F-15E/EX is probably one of the most rounded and deadly fighters today short of the F-35A and the F-22.  So, with these problems in the field, I guess we need to just scrap the plane and move onto something else.  Wait, there isn't anything else.
Click to expand...

Congrats you allowed the military industrial complex maneuver you into a corner so you must buy crap that doesn't work.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35’s Gun That Can’t Shoot Straight Adds to Its Roster of Flaws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as late as 1980 the F-15A had been in service for about 6 years and was still experiencing cracked airframes near the tail section.  If all that was wrong with the F-15A was the gun mounts then we would have been ecstatic. Such was not the case.  If we used the F-15A model with all it's flaws and didn't fix them, we would have been better off scrapping the damned thing.  It's one thing to fly it at Ogden with experienced pilots but another to put it in the hands of young pilots in the field.  And the F-15E/EX is probably one of the most rounded and deadly fighters today short of the F-35A and the F-22.  So, with these problems in the field, I guess we need to just scrap the plane and move onto something else.  Wait, there isn't anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congrats you allowed the military industrial complex maneuver you into a corner so you must buy crap that doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Hey, glad you are back.  I missed kicking your ass.  

I spent over 20 years on many different weapons system.  From Antiques to cutting edge.  I once stepped of a C-130 returning from a TDY and was handed PCS orders to work on a C-124 that the Air Force claimed was not in the inventory.  Not to mention working on Goooneys, C-119s, C-54s, C-118 (Generals Birds), C-130A,D and E, AC-130A and E and a ton of others.  I also worked around the F-15A at the first forward operational base.  I would say that the F-4 got long on the tooth and cost way too much per flying hour.  The F-15 that was replacing it also costs a ton per flying hour.  But in 6 years, it dropped to half of what the F-4 did in it's best year.  I wasn't on the F-16 but it also replaced the F-4 and had it's fair share of teething problems but the original F-16 was a motorscooter with jet engines, very simple and easy to maintain.  But it didn't start day one cheaper to operate the the old Phantom it was replacing either.  It's just the F-16 came on faster because it was a lot simpler bird than the F-15.  The F-16 you see today ain't the F-16 your Father might have flown (or your Grand Father).  And neither is the F-15.  You keep comparing a brand new weapons system to a matured weapons system.  But you weren't around to help them get to that maturity.  

The F-35 has problems and they are being addressed but that doesn't change the fact that it can hit ANY known ground target with impunity right now and will chalk up a 20-1 kill rate against anything in the sky with the exception of the F-22.  So it's guns don't work as well as the F-15E or the F-16C.  You should have seen the problem with guns we had with the F-15A.  When the Radar went off line, ALL weapons systems went dead including the gun.  That was corrected for the Guns in 1981 when the F-15C was introduced and the As were upgraded.  6 years.  When we flew wargames against the F-4s, they might have one or two F-4s with working radar and the rest of the flight would be blind.  Their guns and Sidewinders operated independently from the Radar.  They mounted 7 power Weaver Hunting Scopes so the pilots could see farther and used the heat seeker heads to pick up targets.    We could only generate 33% of our fighters at any one given time and the Phantoms reached 95% when they included their flying dead.  Considering we had the same number of fighters, we were faced with 3 fighters for every one of ours in the Air.  The end result was, we had a 4 to 1 kill rate.  BTW, 33% sounds like a lower figure but we had the best Sortie Generation in the AF in the late 70s and early 80s.  Bitburg V Sondy.  At the end of the War Games, we still had airframes left.  Sondy had zero left.

So don't give me this crap.  The F-35A with all it's problems is still worth 20 of the other Fighters.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Hey, glad you are back.  I missed kicking your ass.


It's funny isn't it?  Manonthestreet has been proven so wrong in this thread, every prediction he's made about F-35 has been fail, every prediction about international condemnation has turned wrong on him, so he's reduced to desperately googling for any "bad news" item so he can rush in here to gleefully post it.

Gun pod passed tests on B/C. They will get the gun fixed on A. 

Meanwhile Poland has officially signed for about 32 F-35s, you know the Poland that was one of Manonthestreet's last "bad news" posts on here, yet another one that blew up in his face.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, glad you are back.  I missed kicking your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny isn't it?  Manonthestreet has been proven so wrong in this thread, every prediction he's made about F-35 has been fail, every prediction about international condemnation has turned wrong on him, so he's reduced to desperately googling for any "bad news" item so he can rush in here to gleefully post it.
> 
> Gun pod passed tests on B/C. They will get the gun fixed on A.
> 
> Meanwhile Poland has officially signed for about 32 F-35s, you know the Poland that was one of Manonthestreet's last "bad news" posts on here, yet another one that blew up in his face.
Click to expand...


Looking back on the old F-4, we put gun pods on our castrated F-4 but they weren't that accurate.  But they certainly made the enemy close that hatch.  I don't know if they have ever gotten gun pods to work as well as internals or ever will.  And I imagine that the internal guns on the A has a much higher level to reach than the gun pods on the other two.  But I don't think gun mounts are that hard of thing to correct.  Give me enough baling wiring, glue and duct tape and I can make it work for at least one flight.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> In fact, F-35s IR stealth can be summed up in one word: nonexistant.





Manonthestreet said:


> having no IR signature reduction whatsoever


Only when we define "nonexistant" as something manonthestreet is ignorant about.

From RF-IR Stealth (Techniques/Benefits)

On skin:

_Modern stealth aircraft such as F-22 and F-35 are coated with IR-suppressive skin coatings, the exact composition of the coatings is unknow but in general, they have very low emissivity. Emissivity is of the surface of a material is its effectiveness in emitting energy as infrared radiation, coating with a lower emissivity mean the aircraft emit a lower level of IR radiation at any given temperature._

_For example it is reported that the Top coat on F-22 , F-35 can reduce their skin infrared signature in long and infrared wavelength (8–12 microns) by more than half. Some type of IR suppression coating also has the ability to shift the the infrared radiation to non-atmostpheric window region, making the IR radiation of aircraft better absorbed by the atmosphere. The main advantage of this IR surpression coating is that it can help lower the inner temperature of the coated object, since the broad-band coating acts as a thermal insulator, the temperature of the underlying object is increased to a much greater extent._

On engine:

_For the F-35, the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and LOAN balanced the requirements of LO and efficient aeromechanical performance. It offered a lightweight (especially for the F-35B STOVL variant), low-cost configuration. The F-35A and F-35C variants use the same nozzle configuration. A shorter version was readily configured for compatibility with the F-35B STOVL 3BSM to meet ground clearance needs while landing vertically. Since the engine exhaust system is the primary contributor to aft sector infrared signature, engine and nozzle design needed to incorporate effective methods to reduce infrared emissions. This was accomplished using reduced radar cross-section-compatible techniques, including hiding, shaping, and temperature control. The F-35 exhaust system employs a cooled turbine face blocker, effectively eliminating the temptation to employ more impacting techniques like a serpentine exhaust duct. The F135 exhaust system does use a cooled nozzle to significantly reduce the aft sector infrared signature. With these techniques, the cooled blocker and nozzle tail-on infrared signature is significantly less than the signature of an uncooled exhaust system.
Approved for public release 5/8/18, JSF18-365_

from Aviation week:

_Pratt points out that the F119 and F135 are the only production engines with stealthy augmentors. Their design eliminates conventional spray bars and flame holders and integrates multi-zone reheat fuel injection into curved vanes that block the line-of-sight to the turbine._

_Also, like the F119 augmentor, the F135 augmentor is stealthy: The design of the two engines’ augmentors places multi-zone fuel injection into curved vanes which eliminate conventional spray bars and flame holders and block the line of sight to the turbine when looking into the engine from behind
_

*Of course we know you will ignore this post demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about just like the dozens of other posts that have exposed you in this thread.*

*Enjoy your reputation as untrustworthy source.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Here is another tidbit.  ALL Aircraft or even Objects heat up the faster they travel.  When the F-22 and F-35 enter the combat area, they can defeat it simply by going under Mach 1.  The same goes for almost any object.  If you exhaust isn't visible (i.e. you are facing the detector) slowing down removes the IR caused by the drag of atmosphere.  If we have a F-22 using super cruise at Mach 1.5 to 1.8, he's going to light up  the sky for miles.  So he slows down the second he detects a possible adversary.    Using this method, the F-35 and the F-22 can get much closer before detection than a conventional fighter.  But the adversary is already lit up like a Christmas 
Tree.


----------



## Picaro

I live where they make the F-35 and test them constantly. Still no crashes or anything to report, none have ended up in the lake yet.


----------



## Picaro

Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Picaro said:


> Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.



That's why that region that Israel keeps the SA missiles clean in Syria is so important.  While the F-35 may be "Invisible" the refuelers aren't.  And without that refueling the F-35 doesn't have the range to get to Iran, take the pictures and return.  

What many don't understand ( and you do) is that some of the really highly sensitive gear and coding are left out of anything the US exports.  Even in the F-15.  The F-15EX has more capability than the F-15SA that is exported and I am sure that Israel has packages for those F-15SAs and Is waiting to be installed.  But I doubt if Israel will install the really good stuff into the SAs that they install in their own Is.


----------



## DrainBamage

Picaro said:


> Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.


While I'm quite sure Israel will customize their F-35s, they were fully operation when they landed in Israel.

Have already been used in air strikes:
Israel Says F-35s See First-Ever Combat With IDF Over Syria | Christians United for Israel

_Israel’s air force commander says recent airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria were carried out by the F-35 stealth fighter – the first time the newly fielded warplane has been used in an “operational attack.”_


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Congrats you allowed the military industrial complex maneuver you into a corner so you must buy crap that doesn't work.


You could make the same comment about F-22 since it's oxygen system was having problems well into it's operational lifespan.

In fact you could find a mechanical flaw in every aircraft after they achieve operational use, so your comment, like most other useless bilge you release, is pointless and driven more by a stubborn desire to have been right about this aircraft.


----------



## Picaro

DrainBamage said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm quite sure Israel will customize their F-35s, they were fully operation when they landed in Israel.
> 
> Have already been used in air strikes:
> Israel Says F-35s See First-Ever Combat With IDF Over Syria | Christians United for Israel
> 
> _Israel’s air force commander says recent airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria were carried out by the F-35 stealth fighter – the first time the newly fielded warplane has been used in an “operational attack.”_
Click to expand...


Israeli pilots flew them around in training exercises before they left here, so yeah, they were 'operational' or they wouldn't have taken delivery of them. Modular construction allows systems to be built independently from the airframe factory floor and plugged in pretty quick.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Picaro said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm quite sure Israel will customize their F-35s, they were fully operation when they landed in Israel.
> 
> Have already been used in air strikes:
> Israel Says F-35s See First-Ever Combat With IDF Over Syria | Christians United for Israel
> 
> _Israel’s air force commander says recent airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria were carried out by the F-35 stealth fighter – the first time the newly fielded warplane has been used in an “operational attack.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli pilots flew them around in training exercises before they left here, so yeah, they were 'operational' or they wouldn't have taken delivery of them. Modular construction allows systems to be built independently from the airframe factory floor and plugged in pretty quick.
Click to expand...


One thing should be noted, for export, operational versus fully operational is two different things.  Plus, there are systems left out and other systems from the host country installed at the factory before delivery.  It's Operational for the host country but it may not be operational for the United States.


----------



## 22lcidw

Daryl Hunt said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm quite sure Israel will customize their F-35s, they were fully operation when they landed in Israel.
> 
> Have already been used in air strikes:
> Israel Says F-35s See First-Ever Combat With IDF Over Syria | Christians United for Israel
> 
> _Israel’s air force commander says recent airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria were carried out by the F-35 stealth fighter – the first time the newly fielded warplane has been used in an “operational attack.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli pilots flew them around in training exercises before they left here, so yeah, they were 'operational' or they wouldn't have taken delivery of them. Modular construction allows systems to be built independently from the airframe factory floor and plugged in pretty quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing should be noted, for export, operational versus fully operational is two different things.  Plus, there are systems left out and other systems from the host country installed at the factory before delivery.  It's Operational for the host country but it may not be operational for the United States.
Click to expand...

Like it or not we are stuck with it.  And they need to build a lot of them and sell a of of them to recoup some of the costs. The fixes will come and the upgrades will occur.


----------



## Picaro

22lcidw said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm quite sure Israel will customize their F-35s, they were fully operation when they landed in Israel.
> 
> Have already been used in air strikes:
> Israel Says F-35s See First-Ever Combat With IDF Over Syria | Christians United for Israel
> 
> _Israel’s air force commander says recent airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria were carried out by the F-35 stealth fighter – the first time the newly fielded warplane has been used in an “operational attack.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli pilots flew them around in training exercises before they left here, so yeah, they were 'operational' or they wouldn't have taken delivery of them. Modular construction allows systems to be built independently from the airframe factory floor and plugged in pretty quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing should be noted, for export, operational versus fully operational is two different things.  Plus, there are systems left out and other systems from the host country installed at the factory before delivery.  It's Operational for the host country but it may not be operational for the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it or not we are stuck with it.  And they need to build a lot of them and sell a of of them to recoup some of the costs. The fixes will come and the upgrades will occur.
Click to expand...


Spending on a lot of projects get buried in big projects, so it's not just about the F-35 alone, it's about hiding your real budget for any given program to make it harder for snoops and industrial and foreign military spies to track what one is doing. And yes, it also helps hide corruption, but there is less of that than most would like to imagine.


----------



## DrainBamage

Picaro said:


> it's about hiding your real budget for any given program to make it harder for snoops and industrial and foreign military spies to track what one is doing.


Yep. As in the _"Ta da! We've had four squadrons of operational stealth fighters for a few years now"_ unveil by USAF in 1988.


----------



## Silver Cat

F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it. 









						The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
					

The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## rylah

Silver Cat said:


> F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
> 
> 
> The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



No lame duck at all,
ask Russians and their Iranian friends.

But sure, instead they'll keep selling it for astronomic prices
while as usual waiting for the IAF to figure things out...


----------



## miketx

Silver Cat said:


> F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
> 
> 
> The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


HOw many times you flown it?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Silver Cat said:


> F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
> 
> 
> The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



The Swiss Army Fighter will had restrictions.  It's a real quagmire to design a subsonic Swiss Army Fighter and a Supersonic Fighter.  Let's face it, the F-35 is a compromise all the way and they knew that going in.  Having one Air Frame to do it all was not a good idea in the first place.  But it ended up being a home run overall.  

The problem you keep harping about is the lift fan and extra fuel area for the F-35B and C.  It shortens the ability to carry weapons.  The A doesn't have that restriction because it's the lightest and has a full length weapons bay.  The solution is for the creation of a shorter weapon and they are doing just that.

And let's not forget they had to add extra wing area for the C model and the fact that the B model has to operate at much lower speeds.  Guess what, you get a different style tail section for both of those.  But they didn't so the restrictions.  The A is lighter and less stress is placed on the Airframe (Tail Section).  Hence, it's a bit faster and has less drag.  If you look at that F-35A, it's got a lot of F-4 built in.  The F-35 (all models) fly under the same pretense, if you put a big enough engine on a Brick you can make it fly.  But you can't have anything else if you build that Swiss Army Fighter.  The F-4 was the jet ages first Swiss Army Fighter.  The F-8 was a better fighter but it lost out to the Swiss Army Fighter because just being able to turn and burn isn't money well spent.  

Yes, it would have been better to have 3 completely different designs but it would also have taken much longer and 3 times the cost to produce those 3 different airframes.  I am sure that the AF would have much rather have had a baby F-22, the Navy would have rather had a stealth F-18 and the Marines would have gotten pretty much the same bird as the F-35B anyway.  But even the US doesn't have deep of pockets.  So the AF and Navy get compromises while the Marines get what they wanted in the first place.  And those compromises are just part of the package.  As it stands, nothing can do the Swiss Army Fighter as well as the F-35 of any type.  And will they ever fix all the compromises?  No.  That would require a completely different Airframe, tail section and Wing.  And that's left for the follow on aircraft for the USAF and the Navy.


----------



## Hossfly

Silver Cat said:


> F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
> 
> 
> The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


I live 2 miles from where they're built and the guys who make them say the pilots love them.


----------



## Mushroom

Hossfly said:


> I live 2 miles from where they're built and the guys who make them say the pilots love them.



A few years ago I talked to a Marine Pilot that absolutely adored his F-35B.  He had been an AV8B pilot before, and he said the difference between the two was like night and day.

He said the Harrier was more like a big helicopter, that could fly kind of like a fighter, but it was in no way capable of fighting other fighters.  If they were ever to encounter a Soviet made fighter, their doctrine was to fire any air to air missiles they had and to run like crazy.  They simply lacked the speed to out run them, and other than at low speed were not maneuverable enough to fight them at high speed.

He said the F-35B in comparison really was a fighter jet.  It could still do the same ground support missions that were their reason for existing in the first place, but now if at sea on their amphibious carriers at least had a damned good chance of blunting if not destroying a ground based force intent on sinking the ships they were supposed to defend.


----------



## Manonthestreet

The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
					

The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
> 
> 
> The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



sliverkitty already posted that.  It's been answered.  Now, do you have anything new to add Monobreath?


----------



## Mushroom

Manonthestreet said:


> The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
> 
> 
> The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



And as always, for some reason people tend to forget there really is no "F-35".  There are 3 distinctly different models, the F_35A, F-35B, and F-35C.  Other than in basic avionics and other parts they really are 3 completely different aircraft.  And intended for completely different roles.

Of course, it also must be noted that just like the F-117, the naming of the F-35 is wrong.  The F-117 should have always been called the B-117 or A-117, but the Air Force loves it's fighters (and the F-117 had absolutely no air to air capability - it only attacked ground targets).  And the real designation for this aircraft should be the F/A-35X, in recognition that these are all multi-role aircraft.

I would even argue further that the Marine Corps should be the AV-35B, because it's primary role is not air combat at all but in supporting troops on the ground.  The Marines would expect to have to face fighters in their F-35B about as much as they would expect to face fighters in their AV8B.  This newer bird would do a better job of it than that old Vietnam era fossil, but still nowhere as good as a dedicated fighter would.

And for the Marines and Navy, that is one reason why they are still keeping the F/A-18 around.  It is a dedicated fighter that was modified for ground attack roles, so it will always be a superior fighter in a dedicated air to air role than an aircraft designed from the ground up as multi-role.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Mushroom said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
> 
> 
> The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as always, for some reason people tend to forget there really is no "F-35".  There are 3 distinctly different models, the F_35A, F-35B, and F-35C.  Other than in basic avionics and other parts they really are 3 completely different aircraft.  And intended for completely different roles.
> 
> Of course, it also must be noted that just like the F-117, the naming of the F-35 is wrong.  The F-117 should have always been called the B-117 or A-117, but the Air Force loves it's fighters (and the F-117 had absolutely no air to air capability - it only attacked ground targets).  And the real designation for this aircraft should be the F/A-35X, in recognition that these are all multi-role aircraft.
> 
> I would even argue further that the Marine Corps should be the AV-35B, because it's primary role is not air combat at all but in supporting troops on the ground.  The Marines would expect to have to face fighters in their F-35B about as much as they would expect to face fighters in their AV8B.  This newer bird would do a better job of it than that old Vietnam era fossil, but still nowhere as good as a dedicated fighter would.
> 
> And for the Marines and Navy, that is one reason why they are still keeping the F/A-18 around.  It is a dedicated fighter that was modified for ground attack roles, so it will always be a superior fighter in a dedicated air to air role than an aircraft designed from the ground up as multi-role.
Click to expand...


I think in the F-35 case you are incorrect.  While the primary role of the A is ground attack, it still has a kill rate right out of the gate at 20 to 1 in air to air.  I suspect the Navy version will have the same ability.  I haven't seen the B model's record against pure fighters but I have seen the A model.  And outside of the lift fan of the B and the longer weapons bay of the A, they share enough to be not far off from each other.  The A and the B share the same wings and basic fuselage.

Now let's look at the difference between the YF-17 and the F/A-18.  The Northrup YF-17 shared many parts with the F-5E/F including the wings.  It was a hotrodded F-5.  McDonnell took that basic design and designed a swiss navy fighter for the navy.  If you compare the wings, the YF-17 had the F-5 wings (enlarged) and the F-18 has a completely different wing.










It was more an upgrade for the F-5E than an entirely new bird.  It was what the F-5 could have been.

Now, let's look at the F-18




The F/A-18 doesn't have any of the F-5 left.  It's really a completely new bird.  It was designed to be a jack of all trades and it's pretty damned good at it.  And if you think it can't dog fight, it would be a fools bet.  The difference is, the F-18 slows down and uses it's wing loading to it's advantage.  It like rough terrain, low to the ground and tries to force the fight there.  Unlike the F-14 and the F-15 that fights at either just under of over Mach and goes for altitude.  Some countries use the F-18 for just a fighter roll because they like the down and dirty.  And it's cheap compared to the pure Fighter.  The disadvantage it has is that it's carrier based and carries a lot of excess weight for carrier duty.  Same goes for the SU-33 versus the SU-30.   Can it stand it's ground against a F-15?  Each one will try and get the fight in it's own back yard.  Chances are, there are going to be an exchange of missiles and both go home because neither pilot wants to give up the advantage.  But, the F-18 is designed to replace the A-7 and A-6 and does a pretty damned good job of it.  It was designed that way from the ground up.  But it's still a decent fighter only not in the F-15 or SU-27s league.  But for 4 Gen Fighters, what else is?

The F-35 is also designed for ground attack/support but it has the bite of a fighter.  The F-4 started the thinking and the F-16 and F-18 both followed along those lines.  Let's face it, the F-4 was really a lousy dog fighter compared to the F-8.  The F-16/18/35 follow along in the F-4s footsteps in concept.  Only they did it better.


----------



## Mushroom

Daryl Hunt said:


> The F/A-18 doesn't have any of the F-5 left.  It's really a completely new bird.  It was designed to be a jack of all trades and it's pretty damned good at it.  And if you think it can't dog fight, it would be a fools bet.  The difference is, the F-18 slows down and uses it's wing loading to it's advantage.  It like rough terrain, low to the ground and tries to force the fight there.  Unlike the F-14 and the F-15 that fights at either just under of over Mach and goes for altitude.



Actually, as the name suggests the F-18 was designed purely as an air superiority fighter.  Like in the F-15 the multi-role came much later.  It is air attack, which can also do ground support.  And that air attack capability will always show in it's capabilities compared to other aircraft.

Which is in contradiction to a pure "Attack" aircraft, like the AV8B or A-10.  Those aircraft would never be good air to air fighters, that is simply not their design.

And I for one never try to compare Naval aircraft with ground based ones.  A superb sea launch aircraft will almost always be inferior to that which is ground based, simply because of the compromises that must be made to launch and land them from carriers.

This is the kind of thing that far to many simply overlook when trying to compare different aircraft.  They try to treat them as if they were all the same, and they are not.  And it has not helped that even the Air Force and the rest of the DoD have confused issues by making a guide for naming aircraft, then for various reasons simply ignoring that convention (like the previously mentioned F-117).

And this happened many times.  The A-5 Vigilante was designed as a heavy Naval bomber, and should have been the B-5.  I think a lot of the designation naming of the F-35 is because of the Air Force.  They tend to be more resistant to adding "A" to an aircraft than the Navy and Marines, and they were the hardest sell because they needed their A version far less than the Marines needed their "B" and "C" versions.

From what I have read and heard, the main proponent for the F-35 was the Marines, which needed a newer aircraft to replace the antiquated Harrier.  Then the Navy, which wanted to have at least one stealth aircraft.  I believe the Air Force was really only brought in because they could buy enough to make the program functional.

And what resulted was about what was expected with a single basic design for 3 different services.  Each had their own requirements and needs, but the Marines got the closest to what they really wanted.  And for the first time since WWII finally got a first rate aircraft designed specifically for them, not something bought from somewhere else, or handed off to them because nobody else wanted it.

Even the F-18 started that way.  It was a compromise aircraft that the Navy never really wanted.  They wanted more of the new F_14 Tomcats, but they were expensive and high in maintenance.  The Air Force suggested making a navalized variant of the F-15, but it was too heavy and after conversion cost almost as much as the F-14.  So the F-18 was a cheaper aircraft, and early on used primarily by Marine fliers as a replacement for their aging A-4 and other aircraft.

For those of us old enough to remember the Cold War, the F-18 was never really considered the main fighter of the Navy.  That was first and last the Tomcat.  Even movies like Top Gun could almost be called "Aviation Porn" for the fans of that fighter.  Whenever they sent aircraft out for risky missions like against Libya, it was the Tomcat and not the Hornet that did it.

It was only after many improvements and upgrades that the Navy really fell in love with it, and it became what we all know of today.  Based on a rejected design originally made for the Air Force.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Mushroom said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F/A-18 doesn't have any of the F-5 left.  It's really a completely new bird.  It was designed to be a jack of all trades and it's pretty damned good at it.  And if you think it can't dog fight, it would be a fools bet.  The difference is, the F-18 slows down and uses it's wing loading to it's advantage.  It like rough terrain, low to the ground and tries to force the fight there.  Unlike the F-14 and the F-15 that fights at either just under of over Mach and goes for altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, as the name suggests the F-18 was designed purely as an air superiority fighter.  Like in the F-15 the multi-role came much later.  It is air attack, which can also do ground support.  And that air attack capability will always show in it's capabilities compared to other aircraft.
> 
> Which is in contradiction to a pure "Attack" aircraft, like the AV8B or A-10.  Those aircraft would never be good air to air fighters, that is simply not their design.
> 
> And I for one never try to compare Naval aircraft with ground based ones.  A superb sea launch aircraft will almost always be inferior to that which is ground based, simply because of the compromises that must be made to launch and land them from carriers.
> 
> This is the kind of thing that far to many simply overlook when trying to compare different aircraft.  They try to treat them as if they were all the same, and they are not.  And it has not helped that even the Air Force and the rest of the DoD have confused issues by making a guide for naming aircraft, then for various reasons simply ignoring that convention (like the previously mentioned F-117).
> 
> And this happened many times.  The A-5 Vigilante was designed as a heavy Naval bomber, and should have been the B-5.  I think a lot of the designation naming of the F-35 is because of the Air Force.  They tend to be more resistant to adding "A" to an aircraft than the Navy and Marines, and they were the hardest sell because they needed their A version far less than the Marines needed their "B" and "C" versions.
> 
> From what I have read and heard, the main proponent for the F-35 was the Marines, which needed a newer aircraft to replace the antiquated Harrier.  Then the Navy, which wanted to have at least one stealth aircraft.  I believe the Air Force was really only brought in because they could buy enough to make the program functional.
> 
> And what resulted was about what was expected with a single basic design for 3 different services.  Each had their own requirements and needs, but the Marines got the closest to what they really wanted.  And for the first time since WWII finally got a first rate aircraft designed specifically for them, not something bought from somewhere else, or handed off to them because nobody else wanted it.
> 
> Even the F-18 started that way.  It was a compromise aircraft that the Navy never really wanted.  They wanted more of the new F_14 Tomcats, but they were expensive and high in maintenance.  The Air Force suggested making a navalized variant of the F-15, but it was too heavy and after conversion cost almost as much as the F-14.  So the F-18 was a cheaper aircraft, and early on used primarily by Marine fliers as a replacement for their aging A-4 and other aircraft.
> 
> For those of us old enough to remember the Cold War, the F-18 was never really considered the main fighter of the Navy.  That was first and last the Tomcat.  Even movies like Top Gun could almost be called "Aviation Porn" for the fans of that fighter.  Whenever they sent aircraft out for risky missions like against Libya, it was the Tomcat and not the Hornet that did it.
> 
> It was only after many improvements and upgrades that the Navy really fell in love with it, and it became what we all know of today.  Based on a rejected design originally made for the Air Force.
Click to expand...

The F-18 was never intended to be just an Air to Air asset.  They were to replace the aging A-7 and A-6.  And it did the very jobs that they did.  With the exception of the ruggness of the A-7 being able to absorb hit after hit and still make it home.  Comparing the F-18 to the old A-6 is the same as comparing the F-35B to the AV-8B.  It didn't take them long to get rid of the old A birds out of the Navy.  But the F-18 borrowed heavily from the F-4 in the beginning just like the F-16 did since the F-4 (all versions were about ready to fall out of the sky)  Not all systems could be adapted.  But in time, both the F-16 and 18 got their own systems and both became real bears and tigers in ground attack.  Both were left with enough room to expand into whatever they wanted.   Just like the F-15.  Except, not one thing was able to be used by the F-15 from the F-4 days.  

The F-15A was introduced in 1976 and became forward operating fighters with the F-16 not far behind it.  And not long after that, the F-18 hit the decks.  I know the Navy didn't want to get rid of their F-14Ds but the cost of operation (fuel, repairs, support, deck space) pretty well spelled it's doom.  And the F-18 has been trying to fill that void.  But they lost their long ranged Air to Air asset when the F-14 was taken.  This is one reason the F-35C is so important.  It doesn't replace the F-18 but it does supplement it.  It does take over the long ranged Air Superiority role that the F-18 can't do.  The F-18 is closer to an attack bird than the F-35C but it just so happens that with the F-35C it all depends on the load out.  It's nice to know if the F-35C gets in a pinch, he drops his load and cleans up and just appears to disappear with only his internal weapons and fuel and he becomes either a light loaded Attack Bird or an Air Superiority without changing a thing once the externals are dropped.

The B model is playing havoc right now in Asia.  They are a full fledged Gen 5 and can be almost anywhere anytime.  Those baby carriers are priceless.  You want pictures at the edge of your potential enemies territory, the B is very capable.  You need a hard to detect escort for your F-18 Strike Group, he can do that.  The Marines have really gotten their moneys worth out of the B.

The A-5C and A-3C were originally designed as nuclear payload bombers but the Navy never used the B designator that I am aware of so they call it an A.  The real designator should have been RF not A.  The AF had RF-111s for a short time until they dropped the R.    And the F-105 was also mislabeled.  It wasn't a conventional bomber at all.  It was a Nuke carrier like the A-5 but the AF called it a F because it wasn't big enough to call it a bomber.  It was successful as a conventional bomber that more than half of the Hanoi Hilton "Guests" were Nickel Drivers, they ran out of pilots and converted Cargo Pilots to fly the remaining Thunderpigs until they just ran out of F-105s and replaced them with the F-111 which, in a limited way, could defend themselves.  This was a time when both services weren't sure of what to use what for and many Birds were misused.  The F-111 ended up being a long ranged Strategic Bomber operating out of England until it was retired in favor of the long ranged F-15E.  So the Navy didn't corner the market for stupity, the AF was even dumber and had even deeper pockets.  

The F-18 never was designed just for Air Superiority.  Note the longer, beefier wings it got from the onset with a ton of hard points.  It's best feature today (with the F-35 B and C around) is that of a bomb and missile truck.  Add in the EW and the Tanker versions and you have one hell of a  halfback for the F-35B and C Quarterback.  It's going to be a couple of decades before the Navy and Marines get rid of their F-18E/F and Gs since it was designed from the get go to be versatile.  
The AF will be replacing their F-16s (long after the last A-10 lands in DM) with the F-35A.  But they finally figured out that the F-15 ain't so simple to replace since there are no more F-22s to be had.  And with the F-15EX, the Russians don't have a thing to compete with the new Eagles.  There are only two birds in Air Superiority better than the F-15EX and they are the F-35 and the F-22.  A F-15E with two drop tanks and full fuel internals has a range of almost 3500 miles carrying just his 6 Ammrams.  And he'll do it as a speed of Mach .95 without afterburner.  Those new engines at over 29K thrust sure did make a difference.  

The time to call anything modern a Attack Bird is gone.  It went with the DoDo bird.  Today, All fighters have Air Superiority and with Ground Attack capablity.  It's just the the F-35 has MORE for Ground attack.


----------



## Mushroom

Daryl Hunt said:


> The F-15A was introduced in 1976 and became forward operating fighters with the F-16 not far behind it.  And not long after that, the F-18 hit the decks.  I know the Navy didn't want to get rid of their F-14Ds but the cost of operation (fuel, repairs, support, deck space) pretty well spelled it's doom.



That is often given as a reason, but it is more likely that the F-14 was killed because of Iran.

Even with all the sanctions in place, somehow Iran was still able to get hold of spare and replacement parts for their F-14s, their major fighter aircraft.  It was more likely killed because doing so also eliminated all of the ways that Iran was able to "acquire" parts they needed from the contractor side of the supply chain.

I find it no coincidence that in less than a year after the F-14 was retired, all spare parts were scrubbed from contractor and Navy inventories and destroyed.  I have been to Moffit many times over the years, and seen even Vietnam era aircraft still sitting on the ground decades after they were retired.  Yet for some reason the entire inventory of the F-14 was turned into razor blades in a year.

And of the 80 F-14 fighters purchased by Iran, by 2007 the number operational has fallen to around 45-50.  Today, it is believed to be 26 operational aircraft.  And they do not seem to be able to manufacture their own replacement parts for many key components, so as that number drops they just scrap them and reuse the avionics in other aircraft.

There was still a lot of good life left in the old Tomcat, and both the Navy and Marines were pushing hard for the Bombcat upgrades.  But the decision was made high up to kill and quickly destroy all but a few static display aircraft, and to me that is something much deeper than simply maintenance.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Mushroom said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-15A was introduced in 1976 and became forward operating fighters with the F-16 not far behind it.  And not long after that, the F-18 hit the decks.  I know the Navy didn't want to get rid of their F-14Ds but the cost of operation (fuel, repairs, support, deck space) pretty well spelled it's doom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is often given as a reason, but it is more likely that the F-14 was killed because of Iran.
> 
> Even with all the sanctions in place, somehow Iran was still able to get hold of spare and replacement parts for their F-14s, their major fighter aircraft.  It was more likely killed because doing so also eliminated all of the ways that Iran was able to "acquire" parts they needed from the contractor side of the supply chain.
> 
> I find it no coincidence that in less than a year after the F-14 was retired, all spare parts were scrubbed from contractor and Navy inventories and destroyed.  I have been to Moffit many times over the years, and seen even Vietnam era aircraft still sitting on the ground decades after they were retired.  Yet for some reason the entire inventory of the F-14 was turned into razor blades in a year.
> 
> And of the 80 F-14 fighters purchased by Iran, by 2007 the number operational has fallen to around 45-50.  Today, it is believed to be 26 operational aircraft.  And they do not seem to be able to manufacture their own replacement parts for many key components, so as that number drops they just scrap them and reuse the avionics in other aircraft.
> 
> There was still a lot of good life left in the old Tomcat, and both the Navy and Marines were pushing hard for the Bombcat upgrades.  But the decision was made high up to kill and quickly destroy all but a few static display aircraft, and to me that is something much deeper than simply maintenance.
Click to expand...


Does make one wonder.  But the F-14 was on it's way out.  But the Navy never really worked on a suitable replacement.  The A-12 was a bust and defunded.  Great idea and fantastic concept just too early for it's time.  Technology hadn't caught up just yet.  In all it's wonders, the Phoenix System could be defeated.  We used to do war games against the Navy's F-14.  It took the F-15 and the F-16 working in tandem.  The problem with the Phoenix system was, yes, it had a huge range.  If all things were perfect, it would follow you home and cook you dinner.  But things were never perfect and not a single Phoenix System ever recorded a kill.  The Phoenix was designed for large bombers ate extreme ranges.  Other systems took over that role for the Navy and do a much better job.  And If I had to put a number to it, if you pitted a flight of F-14Ds against a flight of F-18Es you would have about a 1 to 1.3 kill rate in the F-14s favor.  But you can park twice as many F-18s in the same space you can the F-14s at half the cost on your limited space carriers.  It all really came down to money which the Navy was short on at the time.  

But you may be correct.  Just one of the reasons may have been Iran's F-14 collection.  But that may be more of a conspiracy than not.


----------



## Silver Cat

Advertising of F-35, but with interesting details. 


			https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/BG3406.pdf


----------



## there4eyeM

Far too much is spent on far too many weapons.


----------



## my2¢

Silver Cat said:


> Advertising of F-35, but with interesting details.
> 
> 
> https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/BG3406.pdf



I glanced only at the summary and at the charts within the link.  They do need to keep some A-10s around if only as museum pieces.


----------



## Uncensored2008

It's not WWI anymore. Dogfights between Snoopy and the Red Baron are a thing of the past. Now we need flying weapons platforms, and the F35 is the perfect platform.


----------



## harmonica

Mushroom said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live 2 miles from where they're built and the guys who make them say the pilots love them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few years ago I talked to a Marine Pilot that absolutely adored his F-35B.  He had been an AV8B pilot before, and he said the difference between the two was like night and day.
> 
> He said the Harrier was more like a big helicopter, that could fly kind of like a fighter, but it was in no way capable of fighting other fighters.  If they were ever to encounter a Soviet made fighter, their doctrine was to fire any air to air missiles they had and to run like crazy.  They simply lacked the speed to out run them, and other than at low speed were not maneuverable enough to fight them at high speed.
> 
> He said the F-35B in comparison really was a fighter jet.  It could still do the same ground support missions that were their reason for existing in the first place, but now if at sea on their amphibious carriers at least had a damned good chance of blunting if not destroying a ground based force intent on sinking the ships they were supposed to defend.
Click to expand...

..I was in the USMC for 8 years and saw the Harriers up close.....
1. I would hope [ hahahaha ] the F35 is better --like '''night and day'' [ hahahah ] ..McDonnell Douglas has been history for a long time....first flight for the Harrier around late 70s
2. the Harriers, F/A18s, etc could take out ground forces ''intent on sinking ships''
3. the Harrier defeated superior fighters...in WW2, the Zero was superior in performance/etc to the Wildcat, but the Wildcat still did fine
---it also depends on the pilot---also, the US uses a system of air battle--not just the plane itself








						How the Sea Harrier defeated more superior fighters during the Falklands War
					

In essence, the ability of the British to take back the Falklands rested on pilots and aircraft fighting while outnumbered six-to-one.




					www.wearethemighty.com


----------



## Manonthestreet

Lockheed F-35 Full-Production Decision, Key Test Delayed
					

Pentagon officials have delayed approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet because combat simulation testing that’s needed before that key decision on the $398 billion program has slipped into next year.




					www.bloomberg.com
				



Still not rdy for prime-time


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Lockheed F-35 Full-Production Decision, Key Test Delayed
> 
> 
> Pentagon officials have delayed approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet because combat simulation testing that’s needed before that key decision on the $398 billion program has slipped into next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not rdy for prime-time



It's not?  It flies where it wants to fly.  Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran.  The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35.  Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at.  The same goes if they choose to stay and fight.  You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night.  And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore.  Talk about the heebie jeebies.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed F-35 Full-Production Decision, Key Test Delayed
> 
> 
> Pentagon officials have delayed approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet because combat simulation testing that’s needed before that key decision on the $398 billion program has slipped into next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not rdy for prime-time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not?  It flies where it wants to fly.  Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran.  The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35.  Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at.  The same goes if they choose to stay and fight.  You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night.  And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore.  Talk about the heebie jeebies.
Click to expand...

Yeah then why dont they go full production if its so combat tested


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed F-35 Full-Production Decision, Key Test Delayed
> 
> 
> Pentagon officials have delayed approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet because combat simulation testing that’s needed before that key decision on the $398 billion program has slipped into next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not rdy for prime-time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not?  It flies where it wants to fly.  Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran.  The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35.  Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at.  The same goes if they choose to stay and fight.  You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night.  And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore.  Talk about the heebie jeebies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah then why dont they go full production if its so combat tested
Click to expand...


Okay, I am going to produce a swiss Army knife.  All the blades work as advertised except the cork screw.  Now, it's not just any corkscrew.  It's a corkscrew that requires a billion lines of code.  The Corkscrew gets delayed and the Swiss Army Knife gets produced without that corkscrew.  But the Military wants their fancy Corkscrew.  So the corkscrew gets delayed and production is kept at a lower level.  It's not stopped, it's not even slowed down.  It's just not expanded.  Meanwhile, everyone that is approved to buy that Swiss Army Knife can still buy them or they can wait until the fantastic corkscrew goes through combat testing.  So we stay at the Mark 4 version with the Mark 4 production rate.

Does this mean that the Fantastic Swiss Army Knife isn't the best in the world?  No.  It still is.  But like every other swiss army version, you can't ever say you are through.  And much of the F-35 is being introduced into the 6th Gen fighter today.  The F-22 is a 5 gen while the F-35 is a 5+ fighter.


----------



## Silver Cat

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed F-35 Full-Production Decision, Key Test Delayed
> 
> 
> Pentagon officials have delayed approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet because combat simulation testing that’s needed before that key decision on the $398 billion program has slipped into next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not rdy for prime-time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not?  It flies where it wants to fly.  Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran.  The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35.  Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at.  The same goes if they choose to stay and fight.  You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night.  And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore.  Talk about the heebie jeebies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah then why dont they go full production if its so combat tested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I am going to produce a swiss Army knife.  All the blades work as advertised except the cork screw.  Now, it's not just any corkscrew.  It's a corkscrew that requires a billion lines of code.  The Corkscrew gets delayed and the Swiss Army Knife gets produced without that corkscrew.  But the Military wants their fancy Corkscrew.  So the corkscrew gets delayed and production is kept at a lower level.  It's not stopped, it's not even slowed down.  It's just not expanded.  Meanwhile, everyone that is approved to buy that Swiss Army Knife can still buy them or they can wait until the fantastic corkscrew goes through combat testing.  So we stay at the Mark 4 version with the Mark 4 production rate.
> 
> Does this mean that the Fantastic Swiss Army Knife isn't the best in the world?  No.  It still is.  But like every other swiss army version, you can't ever say you are through.  And much of the F-35 is being introduced into the 6th Gen fighter today.  The F-22 is a 5 gen while the F-35 is a 5+ fighter.
Click to expand...

You see, a duck can fly, swim, run and even dive. But it do nothing of it really good. A penguin is better diver, ostrich - is better runner, a martin is better flyer. 
The attempt to create a sort of the "universal plane" was doomed before it was started. F-35 is not a weapon for the fair combat. F-35 is just a ticket to the club.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed F-35 Full-Production Decision, Key Test Delayed
> 
> 
> Pentagon officials have delayed approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet because combat simulation testing that’s needed before that key decision on the $398 billion program has slipped into next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not rdy for prime-time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not?  It flies where it wants to fly.  Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran.  The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35.  Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at.  The same goes if they choose to stay and fight.  You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night.  And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore.  Talk about the heebie jeebies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah then why dont they go full production if its so combat tested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I am going to produce a swiss Army knife.  All the blades work as advertised except the cork screw.  Now, it's not just any corkscrew.  It's a corkscrew that requires a billion lines of code.  The Corkscrew gets delayed and the Swiss Army Knife gets produced without that corkscrew.  But the Military wants their fancy Corkscrew.  So the corkscrew gets delayed and production is kept at a lower level.  It's not stopped, it's not even slowed down.  It's just not expanded.  Meanwhile, everyone that is approved to buy that Swiss Army Knife can still buy them or they can wait until the fantastic corkscrew goes through combat testing.  So we stay at the Mark 4 version with the Mark 4 production rate.
> 
> Does this mean that the Fantastic Swiss Army Knife isn't the best in the world?  No.  It still is.  But like every other swiss army version, you can't ever say you are through.  And much of the F-35 is being introduced into the 6th Gen fighter today.  The F-22 is a 5 gen while the F-35 is a 5+ fighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, a duck can fly, swim, run and even dive. But it do nothing of it really good. A penguin is better diver, ostrich - is better runner, a martin is better flyer.
> The attempt to create a sort of the "universal plane" was doomed before it was started. F-35 is not a weapon for the fair combat. F-35 is just a ticket to the club.
Click to expand...


It's pretty simple.  What you can see CAN hurt you.  In fact, it can kill you.  Gen 2 of the F-35A has a 20-1 air to air kill rate.  The Military isn't telling us what Gen4 can do since the added the Carbon Webbing and a whole bunch of other really heat toys.  About the only drawback is you can visually see the bird.  A good seasoned pilot can probably eyeball it as far as his radar and IR detector can.  A few of our F-15 Drivers could pick up Bad Guys at 15 miles.  And the old F-4, using his heat seeker tones and a Weaver scope could go well past that.  So it's not perfect.  But in a Radar and IR world, it's perfect.  The old phrase I used was ICUUCMe doesn't work.  ICUUdon'tCMe.  is more like it and the one that "Sees" first, fires first and the one that doesn't dies first or at least gets a many G fun ride in a seat.

The Israelis like it.  The US AF loves it.  The US Marines can't live without it, The Danes are head over heals over it as are the Brits.  Even Canada is doing a rethink on buying it now.  I go by what the Pilots say, not by what ground pounder says.


----------



## Silver Cat

I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed F-35 Full-Production Decision, Key Test Delayed
> 
> 
> Pentagon officials have delayed approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet because combat simulation testing that’s needed before that key decision on the $398 billion program has slipped into next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not rdy for prime-time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not?  It flies where it wants to fly.  Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran.  The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35.  Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at.  The same goes if they choose to stay and fight.  You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night.  And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore.  Talk about the heebie jeebies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah then why dont they go full production if its so combat tested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I am going to produce a swiss Army knife.  All the blades work as advertised except the cork screw.  Now, it's not just any corkscrew.  It's a corkscrew that requires a billion lines of code.  The Corkscrew gets delayed and the Swiss Army Knife gets produced without that corkscrew.  But the Military wants their fancy Corkscrew.  So the corkscrew gets delayed and production is kept at a lower level.  It's not stopped, it's not even slowed down.  It's just not expanded.  Meanwhile, everyone that is approved to buy that Swiss Army Knife can still buy them or they can wait until the fantastic corkscrew goes through combat testing.  So we stay at the Mark 4 version with the Mark 4 production rate.
> 
> Does this mean that the Fantastic Swiss Army Knife isn't the best in the world?  No.  It still is.  But like every other swiss army version, you can't ever say you are through.  And much of the F-35 is being introduced into the 6th Gen fighter today.  The F-22 is a 5 gen while the F-35 is a 5+ fighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, a duck can fly, swim, run and even dive. But it do nothing of it really good. A penguin is better diver, ostrich - is better runner, a martin is better flyer.
> The attempt to create a sort of the "universal plane" was doomed before it was started. F-35 is not a weapon for the fair combat. F-35 is just a ticket to the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple.  What you can see CAN hurt you.  In fact, it can kill you.  Gen 2 of the F-35A has a 20-1 air to air kill rate.  The Military isn't telling us what Gen4 can do since the added the Carbon Webbing and a whole bunch of other really heat toys.  About the only drawback is you can visually see the bird.  A good seasoned pilot can probably eyeball it as far as his radar and IR detector can.  A few of our F-15 Drivers could pick up Bad Guys at 15 miles.  And the old F-4, using his heat seeker tones and a Weaver scope could go well past that.  So it's not perfect.  But in a Radar and IR world, it's perfect.  The old phrase I used was ICUUCMe doesn't work.  ICUUdon'tCMe.  is more like it and the one that "Sees" first, fires first and the one that doesn't dies first or at least gets a many G fun ride in a seat.
> 
> The Israelis like it.  The US AF loves it.  The US Marines can't live without it, The Danes are head over heals over it as are the Brits.  Even Canada is doing a rethink on buying it now.  I go by what the Pilots say, not by what ground pounder says.
Click to expand...

And yet they wont run the necessary tests to prove what it can do.....besides not use supersonic very long without damaging it itself


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Silver Cat said:


> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.



Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs.  These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks.  It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision.  Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert.  All with the same Bird.  And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.  The only bomb that I listed that isn't internal is the Nuke and it's recessed.  All this without drop tanks of any kind.  Not if it goes into Monster Mode, it carries almost as large a load as the F-15E of every bomb and missile that the F-15E can carry.  Of course, like the F-15E, to be loaded out like that he's going to have 2 drop tanks as well.  Unlike the F-15E, if the F-35A gets in trouble, he pickles his externals and goes Poof.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Silver Cat said:


> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.


Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
Click to expand...


The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35.  Same goes for every other 4th gen bird.  You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot.  You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home.  Ask the Israelis.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35.  Same goes for every other 4th gen bird.  You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot.  You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home.  Ask the Israelis.
Click to expand...

BS.  They keep postponing its full rate production because they know its crap as a fighter and ya dont need a cpl thousand flying drone operators.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35.  Same goes for every other 4th gen bird.  You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot.  You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home.  Ask the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.  They keep postponing its full rate production because they know its crap as a fighter and ya dont need a cpl thousand flying drone operators.
Click to expand...


They keep adding to the list of things they want it to do.  V4 was a success but they don't stop there.  The F-35 has become the test bed for the 6th gen fighter.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35.  Same goes for every other 4th gen bird.  You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot.  You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home.  Ask the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.  They keep postponing its full rate production because they know its crap as a fighter and ya dont need a cpl thousand flying drone operators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They keep adding to the list of things they want it to do.  V4 was a success but they don't stop there.  The F-35 has become the test bed for the 6th gen fighter.
Click to expand...

Dont need more for that even if true, and that shouldnt stop the test


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.



I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft. 

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
Click to expand...


The F-35 was never intended as a primary close air support aircraft.   That was just a role tacked on to make the F-35 appear even more economical by adding yet another aircraft (A-10) that it would replace.

Stealth aircraft were never intended to avoid being detected in all circumstances.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.  There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.
> 
> How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier.  You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do,  is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway.  As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 was never intended as a primary close air support aircraft.   That was just a role tacked on to make the F-35 appear even more economical by adding yet another aircraft (A-10) that it would replace.
> 
> Stealth aircraft were never intended to avoid being detected in all circumstances.
Click to expand...






No shit.  However, for the troops on the ground, they would far rather have a reliable, hard hitting CAS aircraft, than a multi role that does only half the job.  The Airforce is stupid trying to make every combat aircraft in the inventory super sonic.  The CAS role is an example of where supersonic capability is not helpful.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
Click to expand...







All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
Click to expand...








Possible.  But in the long run their decisions will cost us lives on the ground.  And that is reprehensible.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
Click to expand...

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs


----------



## Dayton3

Manonthestreet said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
Click to expand...


I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that. 

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.


----------



## Silver Cat

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs.  These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks.  It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision.  Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert.  All with the same Bird.
Click to expand...

But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.



> And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.


J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs.  These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks.  It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision.  Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert.  All with the same Bird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".
Click to expand...


You still don't get it, each and every F-35 has a set of maps already installed.  While GPS is the preferred method, if GPS is lost, the F-35 (like the Tomahawks do) reverts back to the maps pre installed.  No, the F-35 can't have the entire world mapped out in it's memory to the detail it needs but when it goes into an area, the specific maps are preloaded into it's database.  While GPS is nice, it's not needed.

As for the ranges of the enemies missiles, it's a pretty forgone conclusion that when even dealing with Gen4 Fighters, you are going to have to be a hell of a lot closer than your maximum range to tally that kill.  You are going to be more likely to have to be within 30 miles or so to get a Radar Kill while a Heat Seeker is going to be not much more than normal visual range.  The advantage the F-35 has is that he's going to be guiding in his missiles without using any guidance that the bad guys can detect until that missile is well within the kill range.  At that point, the F-35 doesn't go active, the Missile goes active.  While the kill rate for that missile is still only going to be right around 20%, the workaround is the F-35s outnumber you and they fire in 6 into your flight.  One will get through and one kill will happen.  Whatever brilliant plan you had just went to hell in a hand basket.  And you didn't have a clue until your wingman went up in a fireball.  I don't care how well trained you are, an unseen enemy will cause you to change your tactics fast.  You will be worried about the next volley and will it be YOU that runs out of luck.


----------



## harmonica

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems 
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles



TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.


----------



## Dayton3

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
Click to expand...


In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.    

*That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.


----------



## Dick Foster

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

It happens every God damned time they try to make a fighter into a friggin Swiss army knife. A jack of all trades and master of none. They need to tell all the gererals to shut the fuck up about aircraft design and leave it to those who know WTF they're doing.  Even when they do manage to get a great airplane perfectly suited to task like the A10 the fucking fools try to kill it. For now I'd rather be sitting in an F22 if the shit hit the fan and I was a pilot with my ass on the line. Failing that an F15 maybe.


----------



## Dick Foster

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
Click to expand...

The a10 is specifically designed for ground support missions not an air superiority fighter, dumbass. Ask a marine or ground pounder which they'd rather show up to save their ass.


----------



## Silver Cat

Daryl Hunt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs.  These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks.  It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision.  Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert.  All with the same Bird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it, each and every F-35 has a set of maps already installed.  While GPS is the preferred method, if GPS is lost, the F-35 (like the Tomahawks do) reverts back to the maps pre installed.  No, the F-35 can't have the entire world mapped out in it's memory to the detail it needs but when it goes into an area, the specific maps are preloaded into it's database.  While GPS is nice, it's not needed.
Click to expand...

First - when you use your radar for navigation - you are not stealth anymore. Second even if radar&INS accurancy is good enough to find for example the way home, it is not good enough to guide bombs. 




That's why it is clearly written: "There is no practical workaround for launch aircraft GPS denial". " "Choose another weapon".
Isn't it clear enough? 



> As for the ranges of the enemies missiles, it's a pretty forgone conclusion that when even dealing with Gen4 Fighters, you are going to have to be a hell of a lot closer than your maximum range to tally that kill.  You are going to be more likely to have to be within 30 miles or so to get a Radar Kill while a Heat Seeker is going to be not much more than normal visual range.  The advantage the F-35 has is that he's going to be guiding in his missiles without using any guidance that the bad guys can detect until that missile is well within the kill range.  At that point, the F-35 doesn't go active, the Missile goes active.  While the kill rate for that missile is still only going to be right around 20%, the workaround is the F-35s outnumber you and they fire in 6 into your flight.  One will get through and one kill will happen.  Whatever brilliant plan you had just went to hell in a hand basket.  And you didn't have a clue until your wingman went up in a fireball.  I don't care how well trained you are, an unseen enemy will cause you to change your tactics fast.  You will be worried about the next volley and will it be YOU that runs out of luck.


Really? Ok. Let's play the game. Year is 2021, and there is a war against China. Serious amount of sattelites (including GPS-ones) is already destroyed. There is a squadron of B-52's going to bomb China, and there are (you don't know where exactly) two squadrons of PLA's J-20 with PL-21 (effective range 400 km against large and slow targets like B-52). How many F-35 you need to protect those B-52 from a sudden attack of J-20?


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
Click to expand...

1. so you are saying FK the military---who cares about their lives--we care about cost
2.. the A10 cost a lot less than the new ones 
???? they would spend LESS $$$$ with more A10s
3. the US has the $$$$......it's just a matter of what the NEED is....and juggling what should be built 
4. post links to the costs problems of different air frames


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
Click to expand...

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
Click to expand...


In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
> And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs.  These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks.  It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision.  Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert.  All with the same Bird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it, each and every F-35 has a set of maps already installed.  While GPS is the preferred method, if GPS is lost, the F-35 (like the Tomahawks do) reverts back to the maps pre installed.  No, the F-35 can't have the entire world mapped out in it's memory to the detail it needs but when it goes into an area, the specific maps are preloaded into it's database.  While GPS is nice, it's not needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First - when you use your radar for navigation - you are not stealth anymore. Second even if radar&INS accurancy is good enough to find for example the way home, it is not good enough to guide bombs.
> View attachment 408643
> That's why it is clearly written: "There is no practical workaround for launch aircraft GPS denial". " "Choose another weapon".
> Isn't it clear enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the ranges of the enemies missiles, it's a pretty forgone conclusion that when even dealing with Gen4 Fighters, you are going to have to be a hell of a lot closer than your maximum range to tally that kill.  You are going to be more likely to have to be within 30 miles or so to get a Radar Kill while a Heat Seeker is going to be not much more than normal visual range.  The advantage the F-35 has is that he's going to be guiding in his missiles without using any guidance that the bad guys can detect until that missile is well within the kill range.  At that point, the F-35 doesn't go active, the Missile goes active.  While the kill rate for that missile is still only going to be right around 20%, the workaround is the F-35s outnumber you and they fire in 6 into your flight.  One will get through and one kill will happen.  Whatever brilliant plan you had just went to hell in a hand basket.  And you didn't have a clue until your wingman went up in a fireball.  I don't care how well trained you are, an unseen enemy will cause you to change your tactics fast.  You will be worried about the next volley and will it be YOU that runs out of luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Ok. Let's play the game. Year is 2021, and there is a war against China. Serious amount of sattelites (including GPS-ones) is already destroyed. There is a squadron of B-52's going to bomb China, and there are (you don't know where exactly) two squadrons of PLA's J-20 with PL-21 (effective range 400 km against large and slow targets like B-52). How many F-35 you need to protect those B-52 from a sudden attack of J-20?
Click to expand...


As of Mod 4, when a F-35 goes into an area, they load up tactical maps specific to that area.  Like the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, it will use GPS when available.  When GPS is unavailable, it uses the internal maps for targeting.  There is nothing there to jam.  It's all internal.  And NO Radar needed.  The targeting information can come from another AC, a Drone or a Sat either electronically or visually.    You won't know the F-35s are there until your radar sites begin blowing up.  And then you won't know from what vector.  

Meanwhile, the Buff hasn't even launched yet or is many hundred miles away in a holding pattern.  The F-22, B-2 and F-35 changed how air war and ground war is to be fought.  It ain't the 20th century anymore.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. so you are saying FK the military---who cares about their lives--we care about cost
> 2.. the A10 cost a lot less than the new ones
> ???? they would spend LESS $$$$ with more A10s
> 3. the US has the $$$$......it's just a matter of what the NEED is....and juggling what should be built
> 4. post links to the costs problems of different air frames
Click to expand...


We have about 150 of A-10s left.  There is  a reason that new A-10s are not being even considered.  The reason for that is that an A-10, no matter how you fly it, is suseptible to AA and SA, it's also vulnerable to manpads unless it uses it's standoff weapons.  At that point,almost any fighter or bomber can do that job.  Using standoffs, the Buff can actually do a much better job.  There is a pilot that the US has spent millions in training.  Aircraft can be easily replaced but Pilots cannot.  You see, it's not just on the human loss, it's on the cost of training loss as well.  The A-10 requires a battleground free of AA, SA and Manpad resources.  And in that  environment, an AC-130 is much more effective and cheaper to operate.  The AC doesn't care about Manpads since his altitude is beyond where any can reach.  And many of the so called A-10 Vids turns out to be the AC instead.  When you have special forces support, it's almost never an A-10 but almost always an AC-130.  

Today, even against the Syrians, the chances of having a clean battlefield where an A-10 can operate in is almost zero.  Even the F-16s are having losses.  If you don't believe me, ask the Israelis.

The Ground Systems have outgrown the 4th gen aircraft.  But they haven't outgrown the true 5th gen aircraft.  And the only true 5th gen birds out there are the F-22, B-2 and the F-35.  The F-35A has become more a 5+ gen while the F-22 and the B-2 are true 5th gen.  Meanwhile, the other 5th gen are more 5- gen aircraft.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
Click to expand...


31% of all initial attacks on Bagdad were done by the F-117.  And the F-117 continued until Bagdad fell with zero losses.  The F-117 was used to take out Radar Sites and Command Posts primarily.  Meaning 4th Gen Fighters and Bombers could operate in areas the F-117 had cleared out keeping the losses of ALL generation AC for the Coolition to a minimum.  The US and Israel know how to do this because they have done it and have the tools to keep doing it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...


The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.  

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..  

The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Dayton3 said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
Click to expand...

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...

hahahahhah???? and??? what's your point?!!??
...I guess you didn't understand the point = I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was comparable to NATO--especially all except East Germany and Russia--like the Syrians were not comparable to the Israelis
---you said PEER--and that's the first word in my post...and then you say they had greater numbers = that isn't what peer means and/or the context... 

...I don't think the WP had the quality of training/men/aircraft/etc that NATO had.
...NATO *ESTIMATED-*-estimated--like they estimated the MIG 25 a serious threat -and it wasn't 

what does this quote mean? 


> In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
Click to expand...

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game 
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why? 
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
Click to expand...


You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.


----------



## Dayton3

AZrailwhale said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
Click to expand...


The thing is the USAF had good reasons for opposing supporting the Army.    We had come out of the Vietnam War when the overwhelming majority of USAF aircraft that were lost were downed while attacking ground targets which is what prompted part of the design consideration for the F-15 "Not a pound for air to ground". 

Air Force officers had seen how in the Vietnam War vast numbers of their aircraft which had been designed for nuclear warfare suddenly adopted for the conventional ground attack missions.    From B-52s to F-105s.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is the USAF had good reasons for opposing supporting the Army.    We had come out of the Vietnam War when the overwhelming majority of USAF aircraft that were lost were downed while attacking ground targets which is what prompted part of the design consideration for the F-15 "Not a pound for air to ground".
> 
> Air Force officers had seen how in the Vietnam War vast numbers of their aircraft which had been designed for nuclear warfare suddenly adopted for the conventional ground attack missions.    From B-52s to F-105s.
Click to expand...






Yeah, but most were lost up North.  Not in CAS attacks.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahhah???? and??? what's your point?!!??
> ...I guess you didn't understand the point = I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was comparable to NATO--especially all except East Germany and Russia--like the Syrians were not comparable to the Israelis
> ---you said PEER--and that's the first word in my post...and then you say they had greater numbers = that isn't what peer means and/or the context...
> 
> ...I don't think the WP had the quality of training/men/aircraft/etc that NATO had.
> ...NATO *ESTIMATED-*-estimated--like they estimated the MIG 25 a serious threat -and it wasn't
> 
> what does this quote mean?
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The warsaw pact had a huge superiority in numbers while the Nato had a small superiority in quality.  These figures are what would be in theater at the beginning.  Moving the US Forces from Asia and thee US to Europe doesn't have anything to do with "Beam me up, Scotty".  And in 1980, there was only one forward operating base with the F-15 and another was just coming online with the F-16.  The Primary frontline fighters for Nato would still be 1960s vintage AC which would NOT have the technical superiority over the Warsaw Pact.

And before you discount the Mig-25, the 25 only loses in a dogfight.  But in a Radar world, short  of the F-14, it was the best.  In a fight, teamed up with the Mig-21 using it as it's long ranged radar, those two would equal any combination save a flight of F-14s and I doubt if one carrier group with 20 F-14s would make much of a difference.  

The primary AC used by Nato would be the F-4 and the F-104.  The Mig-25, Mig-23BM and the Mig-21BIS are easy matches.  You keep giving Nato AC that are a few years away.  Yes, maybe there might have been a couple of hundred F-15As and a couple of hundred F-16As but they would have been stateside and it would take weeks to get them to England.  The War would have been over in 2 weeks.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahhah???? and??? what's your point?!!??
> ...I guess you didn't understand the point = I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was comparable to NATO--especially all except East Germany and Russia--like the Syrians were not comparable to the Israelis
> ---you said PEER--and that's the first word in my post...and then you say they had greater numbers = that isn't what peer means and/or the context...
> 
> ...I don't think the WP had the quality of training/men/aircraft/etc that NATO had.
> ...NATO *ESTIMATED-*-estimated--like they estimated the MIG 25 a serious threat -and it wasn't
> 
> what does this quote mean?
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The warsaw pact had a huge superiority in numbers while the Nato had a small superiority in quality.  These figures are what would be in theater at the beginning.  Moving the US Forces from Asia and thee US to Europe doesn't have anything to do with "Beam me up, Scotty".  And in 1980, there was only one forward operating base with the F-15 and another was just coming online with the F-16.  The Primary frontline fighters for Nato would still be 1960s vintage AC which would NOT have the technical superiority over the Warsaw Pact.
> 
> And before you discount the Mig-25, the 25 only loses in a dogfight.  But in a Radar world, short  of the F-14, it was the best.  In a fight, teamed up with the Mig-21 using it as it's long ranged radar, those two would equal any combination save a flight of F-14s and I doubt if one carrier group with 20 F-14s would make much of a difference.
> 
> The primary AC used by Nato would be the F-4 and the F-104.  The Mig-25, Mig-23BM and the Mig-21BIS are easy matches.  You keep giving Nato AC that are a few years away.  Yes, maybe there might have been a couple of hundred F-15As and a couple of hundred F-16As but they would have been stateside and it would take weeks to get them to England.  The War would have been over in 2 weeks.
Click to expand...








If it were that cut and dried the Soviets would have attacked.  Considering that they didn't they were nowhere near as confident as you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

AZrailwhale said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
Click to expand...


They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
Click to expand...









The huge difference being the A-10 can survive in a high threat environment that the A-7 can't.   The A-10's loiter time is also significantly greater.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
Click to expand...


I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980.  I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes.  The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time.  Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally.  It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange.  I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980.  I was on the Soviet AF team.  We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways.  6 minutes fro launch.  The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse.  The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.

Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
> But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.
Click to expand...


That's because he''s never been in one.  All those cardboard pieces are human beings.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980.  I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes.  The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time.  Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally.  It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange.  I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980.  I was on the Soviet AF team.  We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways.  6 minutes fro launch.  The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse.  The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.
> 
> Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.
Click to expand...

There wouldn’t have been any birds in NATO’s skies thirty minutes after the Soviets detonated their tactical nukes.  That’s how long it would have taken US strategic ballistic missiles to hit the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries.  France’s Mirage IVs would hit Moscow on one way suicide missions shortly after that.  The USA’s stayed position was to respond with strategic nukes to any use of WMD by an opponent.  Gas, Germs or Nukes, we’d respond with massive Nuclear strikes on the USSR and Eastern Europe.  The war would be over in a few hours with the few survivors in out of the way places trying to survive.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

AZrailwhale said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980.  I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes.  The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time.  Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally.  It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange.  I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980.  I was on the Soviet AF team.  We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways.  6 minutes fro launch.  The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse.  The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.
> 
> Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There wouldn’t have been any birds in NATO’s skies thirty minutes after the Soviets detonated their tactical nukes.  That’s how long it would have taken US strategic ballistic missiles to hit the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries.  France’s Mirage IVs would hit Moscow on one way suicide missions shortly after that.  The USA’s stayed position was to respond with strategic nukes to any use of WMD by an opponent.  Gas, Germs or Nukes, we’d respond with massive Nuclear strikes on the USSR and Eastern Europe.  The war would be over in a few hours with the few survivors in out of the way places trying to survive.
Click to expand...


that was the conclusion reached years later.  But the same scenario could have been done through conventional means with higher Warsaw Pact losses.    But Warsaw Pact could afford the additional losses.

You leave out the fact that the Soviets would have also fired their own Strategic Nukes at the US and other parts of the Nato Countries as well with the launch of the nato Nukes.


----------



## Dayton3

Daryl Hunt said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
Click to expand...


In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
Click to expand...


I got my birth on the Military War games because of an A-7 V F-15.  The F-15 Drivers tried to learn a game called Airwars that we played weekly.  I kept getting ground attacks with the A-7 or some other form of not so glorious bird like the Mig-21 in the game.  All of us could not fly the brand new spanking F-15 or F-14.  Our Pilots kept losing their butts to a bunch of enlisted.  So the Wing King showed up (he was also a veteran of the game) and flew a F-15 and what did I get?  You guess it, a ground attack loaded A-7.  I had to go in, take out a ground installation and get home.  I missed the ground installation and decided home was a very good idea.  He was on me like stink on a skunk.  I hit the deck, flew between trees, down river beds, between buildings and was still taking hits from his gun.  But that Titanium Bathtub held up.  Then we came to a bridge.  I went under and he was forced to go over.  I fired every 40mm grenade I had.  He flew into them.  Needless to say, scratch one F-15.  Afterwards, he asked me what I was trying to do. I answered, "Just get home".  

When you are flying an A-7 against a F-15 forget trying to turn and burn.  The F-15 will just pick his speed up, go in and out of Mach+ to get separation and sooner or later, wait for a mistake from the A-7 jockey.  Never fly the other guys game.  In retaliation, he got me into the F-15 Base Simulator against him.  I died many times from missiles, guns, ripping my wings off, smacking the ground and more.  Airwars was a tactics trainer but the Simulator was a Flight Trainer where you could fly against the computer or another person but it didn't teach tactics.  The Military War Games used Air Wars as the basis for their war game.  So our Wing King sent his two best qualified people, a SSgt and a A1C.    But remember, War games are Tactics more than real application.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
> But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.
Click to expand...

the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
----Israel was:
*outnumbered* in every category
had a very narrow front--understand that?
*''surrounded'''!!!!*
caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
etc
and STILL beat the Arabs


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
> But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
> ....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
> ----Israel was:
> *outnumbered* in every category
> had a very narrow front--understand that?
> *''surrounded'''!!!!*
> caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
> etc
> and STILL beat the Arabs
Click to expand...


They used superior tactics and planning.  Simple as that.  And Guts, lots of Guts.  The same reason the US Military can win with what appears to be an inferior force.  A lot of guts and a little insanity mixed in with superior tactics and planning.  And how did they get that way?  Some small group of planners used a board game to come up with those tactics and planning.  The rest, the Participant brought with them.

War games are nothing more than giant board games.  And if you don't play them, you get defeated.  If you cheat during them you get defeated.  Even when you get defeated in a Board Game, you can often times, learn from it and win in the real world.  Never discount the Board Game.  It's a necessary part of planning.


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
> But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
> ....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
> ----Israel was:
> *outnumbered* in every category
> had a very narrow front--understand that?
> *''surrounded'''!!!!*
> caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
> etc
> and STILL beat the Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They used superior tactics and planning.  Simple as that.  And Guts, lots of Guts.  The same reason the US Military can win with what appears to be an inferior force.  A lot of guts and a little insanity mixed in with superior tactics and planning.  And how did they get that way?  Some small group of planners used a board game to come up with those tactics and planning.  The rest, the Participant brought with them.
> 
> War games are nothing more than giant board games.  And if you don't play them, you get defeated.  If you cheat during them you get defeated.  Even when you get defeated in a Board Game, you can often times, learn from it and win in the real world.  Never discount the Board Game.  It's a necessary part of planning.
Click to expand...

no--board games like this


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
> But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
> ....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
> ----Israel was:
> *outnumbered* in every category
> had a very narrow front--understand that?
> *''surrounded'''!!!!*
> caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
> etc
> and STILL beat the Arabs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They used superior tactics and planning.  Simple as that.  And Guts, lots of Guts.  The same reason the US Military can win with what appears to be an inferior force.  A lot of guts and a little insanity mixed in with superior tactics and planning.  And how did they get that way?  Some small group of planners used a board game to come up with those tactics and planning.  The rest, the Participant brought with them.
> 
> War games are nothing more than giant board games.  And if you don't play them, you get defeated.  If you cheat during them you get defeated.  Even when you get defeated in a Board Game, you can often times, learn from it and win in the real world.  Never discount the Board Game.  It's a necessary part of planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no--board games like this
> View attachment 409103
Click to expand...


I am very familiar with that game.  And it has a ton of historical action in it where you can change history by changing tactics.  Certain actions MUST be taken due to hard core historic events but when you satisfy those, you can change a battle from a win to a loss through planning, strategy and, yes, just plain dumb luck.  If you don't use some form of this type of board game, you are destined to lose the war.  It's one thing to win or lose the battle but you have to put it all together to win the war.  MOST great leaders are very familiar with this game.


----------



## Silver Cat

Daryl Hunt said:


> As of Mod 4, when a F-35 goes into an area, they load up tactical maps specific to that area.  Like the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, it will use GPS when available.  When GPS is unavailable, it uses the internal maps for targeting.  There is nothing there to jam.  It's all internal.


It is good to have a map in your computer (or hands). But you must understand were exactly you are, you must know your position. There is a limited number of tools for it - the pilots eyes, GPS, INS or radar (or, more specifically - CNI system). Do you have any idea, what is the meaning of the letter "N" in the acronyn "CNI"?
INS based on the relatively cheap fiber-optic gyroscopes gives an error near 1 mile  per hour. Not much if you want to find a city or your airbase, but even ten minutes of the flight without correction - restricts the usage of all GPS-guided ordnance. There is no way to use GPS-guided bombs in the GPS-degraded environment. Just "choose another weapon". Do we have laser-guided nuclear bombs? No. How many laser-guided conventional bombs do we have?



> And NO Radar needed.  The targeting information can come from another AC, a Drone or a Sat either electronically or visually.  You won't know the F-35s are there until your radar sites begin blowing up.  And then you won't know from what vector.


May be, enemy won't detect "another AC, a drone or a sat", but what if he will?



> Meanwhile, the Buff hasn't even launched yet or is many hundred miles away in a holding pattern.  The F-22, B-2 and F-35 changed how air war and ground war is to be fought.  It ain't the 20th century anymore.


CMs are good targets for Air Defense, too. Yes. So, if the B-52 (escorted by the "universal fighters" like F-35) can't attack countries with the specialised fighters and interceptors like Russia or China, we lost near 1/3 of our detterence potential.
It's year 2021 - 2025. China wants to retake Taiwan. They plan to start war by eliminating significant part of the US communication, navigation and recon sattelites. They have six battalions of S-400 and, say, seven destroyers type 055 with HQ-26 to protect their important targets, from, say two hundreds warheads.
Even if we start all-out war (and leave Russian unfettered), they lose less in China than can get in Taiwan.
Any suggestions about usage of F-35 in a big war? For one, they are too weak for a total war, and too expensive for a local one.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Silver Cat said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of Mod 4, when a F-35 goes into an area, they load up tactical maps specific to that area.  Like the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, it will use GPS when available.  When GPS is unavailable, it uses the internal maps for targeting.  There is nothing there to jam.  It's all internal.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to have a map in your computer (or hands). But you must understand were exactly you are, you must know your position. There is a limited number of tools for it - the pilots eyes, GPS, INS or radar (or, more specifically - CNI system). Do you have any idea, what is the meaning of the letter "N" in the acronyn "CNI"?
> INS based on the relatively cheap fiber-optic gyroscopes gives an error near 1 mile  per hour. Not much if you want to find a city or your airbase, but even ten minutes of the flight without correction - restricts the usage of all GPS-guided ordnance. There is no way to use GPS-guided bombs in the GPS-degraded environment. Just "choose another weapon". Do we have laser-guided nuclear bombs? No. How many laser-guided conventional bombs do we have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And NO Radar needed.  The targeting information can come from another AC, a Drone or a Sat either electronically or visually.  You won't know the F-35s are there until your radar sites begin blowing up.  And then you won't know from what vector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be, enemy won't detect "another AC, a drone or a sat", but what if he will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the Buff hasn't even launched yet or is many hundred miles away in a holding pattern.  The F-22, B-2 and F-35 changed how air war and ground war is to be fought.  It ain't the 20th century anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CMs are good targets for Air Defense, too. Yes. So, if the B-52 (escorted by the "universal fighters" like F-35) can't attack countries with the specialised fighters and interceptors like Russia or China, we lost near 1/3 of our detterence potential.
> It's year 2021 - 2025. China wants to retake Taiwan. They plan to start war by eliminating significant part of the US communication, navigation and recon sattelites. They have six battalions of S-400 and, say, seven destroyers type 055 with HQ-26 to protect their important targets, from, say two hundreds warheads.
> Even if we start all-out war (and leave Russian unfettered), they lose less in China than can get in Taiwan.
> Any suggestions about usage of F-35 in a big war? For one, they are too weak for a total war, and too expensive for a local one.
Click to expand...


The Marines have about 353 F-35Bs and 67 Cs now.  They are flying the B off of attack carriers.  The C can launch from the Attack Carrier and recover as well.  And the Navy is currently adding the F-35C to the USS Carl Vincent.  In the end, between the Navy and the Marines, the F-35B and C on carriers will outnumber the entire Chinese Aircraft Inventory including none combat Aircraft.  The Chinese really can't invade Taiwan with ground forces without at least 200,000 or more losses without the aid of the US.  Now, add the US Navy, Marines and Air Force and they don't stand a chance.  China would have no choice but to do a full scale war with the US and Russia would not care for that.  And India just might take advantage of that and help themselves to some disputed territories.  And don't give me the crap about the DF-26 Missiles.  They don't have a ghost of a chance to work.


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980.  I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes.  The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time.  Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally.  It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange.  I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980.  I was on the Soviet AF team.  We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways.  6 minutes fro launch.  The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse.  The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.
> 
> Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahhah
.....nukes used---so the scenario is:
 it doesn't MATTER how many planes the WP has---it's a nuke war!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## The Original Tree

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

*Biden and Obama basically let China walk in the door and steal the blueprints to the F-35 and let Russia steal the designs to our Hypersonic missile.

The Chinese also were allowed to steal stealth technology for our submarines.  And Bill Clinton gave away missile guidance technology to China to help with their "Space Program".  That tech now sits in North Korean and Iranian Missiles.  Globalists do what a Globalist will do to undermine America.

Never in America have two traitors like this given away so much to our enemies for so long.

This is why we had to rush Generation 6 Development.*


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
Click to expand...

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
Click to expand...


In 1980, the F-15 Radar wasn't what it is today.  It was easy to confuse it by ground clutter.  And when that ground clutter gives the A-7 something to hide behind, you can't shoot through trees and granite.  And the A-7 can fly in places the F-15 can't due to wing span.  When you are dealing with on the deck, all of a sudden that climb rate doesn't mean a thing.  And since you are strictly visual, that radar doesn't mean a thing either.

Here is a little hint on why the A-7 survived.  The F-15s guns were tied into his radar in 1980.  This was corrected shortly after. You defeated his radar or he lost his radar, he also lost his gun.  It helps to be out of the Avionics Squadron.  That means, if the A-7 Jockey is taking advantage of the terrain, you guns on your F-15 won't be operational on every pass.  And the A-7 was designed to take hits from the Russian 23mm and 37mm AA Weapons.  A few hits from a 20mm it can handle.  Even a few hits from a 30mm it can handle.  It's fuselage is a titanium Bathtub.  That one engine is better protected than the 2 engines in the F-15.  

On the ending, if you have ever seen either an A-1 or an A-7 do a ground attack with his forward firing weapons, you would understand.  It's not something any Aircraft could survive.  It was meant to knock out tanks.  Or at least suppress them.  And to completely defeat the F-15, the A-7 did not have to knock the F-15 out of the air.  He just had to take out the Radar by damaging the Array or the Radar Boxes in the nose.  A miss with 40mm Grenades means shrapnel will be hitting the F-15s nose rendering the Radar useless.  He just lost his guns and missiles.  Or a direct hit and he's toast and the Driver walks home at the very least.  There is a reason that even the A-1E has mig kills to it's name.    Where do you think I got the idea from?  From a real life A-1E against 3 Migs where 2 Migs didn't survive.  One flew into the side of a valley and the other flew directly in front of the Sandy and got hit by about 6 ground attacks worth or ordinance.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1980, the F-15 Radar wasn't what it is today.  It was easy to confuse it by ground clutter.  And when that ground clutter gives the A-7 something to hide behind, you can't shoot through trees and granite.  And the A-7 can fly in places the F-15 can't due to wing span.  When you are dealing with on the deck, all of a sudden that climb rate doesn't mean a thing.  And since you are strictly visual, that radar doesn't mean a thing either.
> 
> Here is a little hint on why the A-7 survived.  The F-15s guns were tied into his radar in 1980.  This was corrected shortly after. You defeated his radar or he lost his radar, he also lost his gun.  It helps to be out of the Avionics Squadron.  That means, if the A-7 Jockey is taking advantage of the terrain, you guns on your F-15 won't be operational on every pass.  And the A-7 was designed to take hits from the Russian 23mm and 37mm AA Weapons.  A few hits from a 20mm it can handle.  Even a few hits from a 30mm it can handle.  It's fuselage is a titanium Bathtub.  That one engine is better protected than the 2 engines in the F-15.
> 
> On the ending, if you have ever seen either an A-1 or an A-7 do a ground attack with his forward firing weapons, you would understand.  It's not something any Aircraft could survive.  It was meant to knock out tanks.  Or at least suppress them.  And to completely defeat the F-15, the A-7 did not have to knock the F-15 out of the air.  He just had to take out the Radar by damaging the Array or the Radar Boxes in the nose.  A miss with 40mm Grenades means shrapnel will be hitting the F-15s nose rendering the Radar useless.  He just lost his guns and missiles.  Or a direct hit and he's toast and the Driver walks home at the very least.  There is a reason that even the A-1E has mig kills to it's name.    Where do you think I got the idea from?  From a real life A-1E against 3 Migs where 2 Migs didn't survive.  One flew into the side of a valley and the other flew directly in front of the Sandy and got hit by about 6 ground attacks worth or ordinance.
Click to expand...







You are full of poo, dude.  The A-7 ain't going to be sweeping in and out or rock formations like a fucking X Wing fighter from star wars.

The F-15 smokes the A-7 through the Grand Canyon which is as close as you are going to get to your fantasy star wars scenario.

And the F-15 radar was pretty damned good when they came online.  General Strand, who commanded Holloman AFB and brought the F-15 into the inventory, and who was a good friend, told me how amazed they were with its ability to pick moving targets out of ground clutter.

Even way back then.

So, real world vs you and your enlisted man war game star wars horseshit.

BTW enlisted don't do the wargames.

Just a heads up for your next lie.


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
Click to expand...


I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
Click to expand...


That's what was thought about the Mig-29 V the F-15.  Turned out the F-15 could handle it's own quite well in a turn and burn.  The problem isn't with which AC can do it best, it's the fact the Pilot can only take so much.  When all of the AC can sustain a better than a 9+ G turn rate it gets down to the pilot.  Even the F-22 is limited by the pilots physical limits.  NEVER, NEVER fight an even fight.  Always fight the fight where you have the advantage.  All this crap about modern day dog fighting is just that.  The 5th gen fighter determines the fight and he will always elect to disengage and take it to BVR where the 4th gen fighter is at a huge disadvantage.  You try and get an F-15 in a dogfight, he just uses his massive power and puts miles between you and him and it's a different game, one where he's king.  But if the F-15 is going against something like a SU-35, he's going to want to keep it up close, maybe, wherever the Pilot of the F-15 believes he has the advantage.  Or the F-15 Pilot is going to hit the gas and just leave and there is nothing that any one can do about it.  Try following a F-15 on V-Max going UP.  Even you missiles can't follow him.

When the F-15 was introduced, all the rules were changed.  And all successful fighters after it had to be able to come close to that performance of at least a sustained 9+ g stress.  But Pilots haven't changed and can really only take about a 7.5 sustained stress.  Meaning, the A-7 can turn with just about anything if the Pilot is wearing a G suit.  In 1980, there were no G-suits for A-7 pilots.


----------



## Silver Cat

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
> 1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
> 2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size.  Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made.  You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth,  ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice".     And its even worse for drones.
> 
> Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?
> 
> 50%.    With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.
> 
> *That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat*.    In short,  there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In raw numbers alone,  the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe.  By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost.  No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles.  And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff.  But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7.  The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply.  By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15.  And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet.  Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers.  And that is just Air Power.
> 
> On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank.  Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72.  In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..
> 
> The Winner?  If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact.  If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
> ..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
> ..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the  Germans were using *JETS*/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''
> 
> ...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980.  I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes.  The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time.  Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally.  It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange.  I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980.  I was on the Soviet AF team.  We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways.  6 minutes fro launch.  The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse.  The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.
> 
> Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahhah
> .....nukes used---so the scenario is:
> it doesn't MATTER how many planes the WP has---it's a nuke war!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. Do you have any problems with the nuclear war? 

How it was described? 

"1-5 SOVIET WAR-FIGHTING, WAR-WINNING DOCTRINE
The Soviet military leaders, as revealed in their writings, have
never accepted the necessity for mutual vulnerability. They do not use the
concept of deterrence, not in a military sense. Most likely the Soviets are
sincere when claiming they want to avoid nuclear war, but just as sincerely
they make it clear that if a superpower nuclear war should occur, they intend
to fight and ultimately win. Thus, Soviet military writings stress a "war￾fighting, war-winning" doctrine that has been adapted to Clausewltz's dictum
that was 1s an extension of politics. From affirming Moscow's support of
"liberation" wars, to rejecting the Ideas that superpower nuclear war 1s
unthinkable or that such a war can have no winner, Soviet military doctrine
consistently supports the correlation between war and policy. A key point 1n
this doctrine is that despite revolutionary Increases in the destructive
power of weapons, Moscow continues to view war as an Instrument of policy:
"The premise of Marxism-Leninism on war as a continuation of policy
by military means remains true in an atmosphere of fundamental
changes In military matters. The attempt of certain bourgeois
Ideologists to prove that nuclear war moves beyond the control of
policy, ceases to be an Instrument of policy, and does not consti￾tute Its continuation 1s theoretically Incorrect and politically
reactionary....The description of the correlation between war and
policy Is fully valid for the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Far from leading to a lessening of the role of policy in waging war,
the tremendous might of the means of destruction leads to the rais￾ing of that role. After all. Immeasurably more effective means of
struggle are now at the direct disposal of state power."(10)

This view is in direct contradiction to the view held by some
Western theorists that the catastrophic destructiveness of nuclear weapons
makes such weapons less effective as an instrument of policy. Furthermore,
Soviet war doctrine calls for victory not deterrence, preemption not retali￾ation, and superiority in weapons not "rough equivalence," thus acknowledg￾ing the "extraordinarily important role" military might plays in assuring
world peace (on Soviet terms). This doctrine has five related elements:
preemption, quantitative superiority, counterforce and C targeting, com￾bined arms operations to supplement nuclear strikes, and defense.(11)
Soviet strategic doctrine stresses the value of surprise in war and
the decisiveness of a nuclear first strike capability. The Soviets have
concluded that in any future war, nuclear weapons will be the deciding
factor. From this they have deduced that the side that strikes first with
nuclear weapons will have a significant advantage and, in fact, will win the
war."


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
Click to expand...

..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
Click to expand...


It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
Click to expand...


When the SU-35 jumped a F-22, the F-22 was at a momentary disadvantage.  Yes, he knew the SU-35 was there and had to let him close.  At that very moment, the SU-35 had the edge.  But the F-22 could change from a disadvantage to an advantage at a moments notice.  The F-22 has the option to turn and burn or go to what he does best.  The SU-35, in that situation, has no choice but to try and stay in a turn and burn.  He can't run.  If it were the F-15 instead of a F-22 it would be no different.  The F-15 could disengage, put some distance and reengage with a new advantage.  NEVER, I say again, NEVER fight the other guys fight.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
Click to expand...

hahhahah
.....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all 
jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
Click to expand...


The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
Click to expand...

surely you troll and bullshit


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
Click to expand...

..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position 
.....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHH


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
Click to expand...


Again,  what makes you think the rules of engagement would allow BVR?   Most ROEs have in fact not allowed that tactic ever since medium and long range missiles became available.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
Click to expand...


When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
Click to expand...

game over in these links--sorry 
--AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*

'''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''

_''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.

'''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_









						Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
					

US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.




					www.airforcemag.com
				












						Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
					

Whose fighter was better?




					news.yahoo.com
				












						The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
					

Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?




					www.historynet.com
				



.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  what makes you think the rules of engagement would allow BVR?   Most ROEs have in fact not allowed that tactic ever since medium and long range missiles became available.
Click to expand...

see my post # 2192


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.

The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.  

You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
Click to expand...

successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
> it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
Click to expand...


The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap.  The A-7 pilots were not.  the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots.  The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun.  And until the F-4 pilots did,  they weren't faring any better than the Slufs.  And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either.  It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.


----------



## esalla

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
Click to expand...

The F35 is a total hunk of shit.  It was supposed to be a vertical takeoff jet, I even saw a model engine in the air and space museum that showed such.  This means no carrier needed, this jet is a scam perhaps built to sell.  At least 1 new jet is under design now


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
> it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap.  The A-7 pilots were not.  the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots.  The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun.  And until the F-4 pilots did,  they weren't faring any better than the Slufs.  And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either.  It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahahahahaha
1. idiocy
2. we are comparing A7 which is SO maneuverable to the F15, that the A7 could win
..the A7 never went against the 15
hahhahahahha
you know you lost this time
''quality of the pilot'' --I knew you people would say that!!
.....let's tie the 15's pilot's right arm and blindfold him...that would make the A7 pilot better---ok???????????!!!!!!!!!
NO NO NO
the same pilots in the A7 and 15----that's the subject
*OF COURSE *if you have a shithead pilot he won't do well-DUH!!!!!!!!!


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
> it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap.  The A-7 pilots were not.  the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots.  The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun.  And until the F-4 pilots did,  they weren't faring any better than the Slufs.  And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either.  It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
Click to expand...

...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverable
NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what *I *said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
> it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap.  The A-7 pilots were not.  the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots.  The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun.  And until the F-4 pilots did,  they weren't faring any better than the Slufs.  And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either.  It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverable
> NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what *I *said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability
Click to expand...


And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15.  You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end.  They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR.  Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
\


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F35 is a total hunk of shit.  It was supposed to be a vertical takeoff jet,
Click to expand...


Vertical takeoff is little more than a parlor trick.   It is virtually never used operationally.    What is used is SHORT TAKEOFF and VERTICAL LANDING.    Taking off from a ski jump to maximize your payload.   Now once a mission is over,  your fuel is burned off and munitions expended,  you can return and land vertically as your aircraft is now tons lighter.


----------



## harmonica

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
> it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap.  The A-7 pilots were not.  the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots.  The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun.  And until the F-4 pilots did,  they weren't faring any better than the Slufs.  And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either.  It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverable
> NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what *I *said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15.  You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end.  They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR.  Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
> \
Click to expand...

bullshit-----you people said the A7 can beat the F15/etc --no you are babbleing even MORE bullshit = you lost--like the A7
WW2 vs F15--HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
what you said is all there ..I'll go back and quote it


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F35 is a total hunk of shit.  It was supposed to be a vertical takeoff jet,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vertical takeoff is little more than a parlor trick.   It is virtually never used operationally.    What is used is SHORT TAKEOFF and VERTICAL LANDING.    Taking off from a ski jump to maximize your payload.   Now once a mission is over,  your fuel is burned off and munitions expended,  you can return and land vertically as your aircraft is now tons lighter.
Click to expand...

The joint strike fighter was designed to be vertical takeoff and the F35 can do such, without weapons or a full fuel load.

Diagnosis, total failure.

The USA top line fighters are still the F18 and F22.  The 13 numbers between F22 and F35 are all dead weight


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
> it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap.  The A-7 pilots were not.  the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots.  The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun.  And until the F-4 pilots did,  they weren't faring any better than the Slufs.  And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either.  It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverable
> NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what *I *said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15.  You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end.  They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR.  Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
> \
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit-----you people said the A7 can beat the F15/etc --no you are babbleing even MORE bullshit = you lost--like the A7
> WW2 vs F15--HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
> what you said is all there ..I'll go back and quote it
Click to expand...



If you allow the Modern Fighter to have the luxury of BVR, he will win the fight 100% of the time against a WWII, or any Attack Jet Fighter ever made.  Once something like a modern Sidewinder gets a lockon, it's a done deal.  Radar is just as deadly.  But there are ways to keep the Modern Fighter from getting his BVR situation and force him into a dog fight where he is weak.  You use the terrain whether it be mountains, hills, valleys, buildings, forests or even sand dunes.  If the modern fighter wants to fight under those conditions, he is going to be the disadvantaged and will have to slow down and still take a mile or more to make a full turn.  Meanwhile the WWII and the Attack Fighter can do that turn in, in some cases, in less than 100 feet.  The Attack Jet will be doing about Mach .95 or may be as slow as Mach .75 in the A-10s case.  The WWII Fighter won't be much slower.  

The bad news for the Modern Fighter, it will take him time to spool up.  Meaning, when he hits the gas, he is going to accelerate much slower than the WWII Bird.  For just a few seconds, the WWII bird will be able to out accelerate the Modern Fighter and close the gap.  And when the Modern Fighter is trying to turn, the WWII fighter can lazily turn inside the Modern Fighter without decreasing his speed.  That means, if it's a P-51, he may be running at almost 450 mph (the optimal dogfighting speed of a F-18) and turn inside even a F-22.  Now, let's replace the P-51 with a modern A-10 at 275 knots and we will get the same results.  We can put an A-7 and get the same results as well.  
The use of Radar Missiles couldn't used due to the mission was to take out the Choppers and Choppers are almost invulnerable from Radar Missiles.  Not enough Radar Cross Section.  And due to the hot desert, the heat seekers are worthless.  It's guns only.  In that situation, the Modern Fighter can be defeated almost every time by a WW2 Front Lined Fighter or a modern Attack.  

Here is a whole series of WW2 Warbird against the most Modern Fighters on a one on one

Before you laugh at these people, these are industries best made up of many fighter pilots and enthusiasts and the game is about as close to real as you can get without smelling Jet Fuel.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22.  Why is that?  They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem.  It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations.    And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier.     Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
> 
> The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise.  It's not going to do any of those jobs great.  It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great.  Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great.  Not just adequate.  Especially at that price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But while you are right,   Congress wants to save money.    And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.    But historically the USAF has hated the A-10  for 40 years.    For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing.    And in its first decades,   A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training.    I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time.   They frequently dove toward the ground and  leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows.    And we lived in a hilly region at that.
> 
> Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons.    And in Congress.    For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
> 
> I love the A-10 by the way.   I think we need to build more upgraded ones.   Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft.  The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E.  But they said that only internal guns could be used.  It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8.  Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil.  But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods.  The A-10 could not carry external gun pods.  The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over.  It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight.  The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter.  The "Test" was a fake.  The A-10 was going to win no matter what.  They just changed the rules to make sure it did.  It was a political move instead of a Military one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness,  the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft.    In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc  that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
> 50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
> 2 engines vs 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to a close range dogfight.    Guns and Sidewinders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so the F15 pilot would have to be an idiot and not know how to fly.....the F4 beat the more maneuverable MIGS...it's all tactics and training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also rules of engagement.   If an F-15 is in a situation where it is not allowed to take Beyond Visual Range shots (and this has happened many times in the 20th century) then the Eagle can indeed be forced into close range dogfights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahah
> .....still the F15 has the advantage--it sees the enemy first--which is one of the biggest advantages of all
> jesus christ--the 15 has 3 times the climb rate!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The smartest thing the F-15 can do is disengage and go home.  If he wants to engage the A-7, his BVR advantage is going to be worthless.  It's going to be MarkVeyeballs only.  In 1980, the Radar wasn't that good and if he lost radar or it hicupped, the gun would not fire.  And when the A-7 refuses to leave the ground hugging flight path, your wonderful powerful engines don't mean a thing.  A Smart F-15 Driver will just go home and not take the chance.  That is one fight where the A-7 is either equal or in better shape than the F-15 in 1980.  The Wing King got hungry and hunger can get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you must not know much about air combat---the 15 has the advantage at BVR----so he can use that to get into the best advantageous position
> .....an F-15 pilot go home and not fight????!!!!!!!!
> HAHHAHAHAHAHH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the A-7 uses the terrain to remove any chance of a BVR encounter you just lost that advantage.  You keep thinking that in 1980, that the kill rate for a missile was higher than 16% in ideal ideal conditions.  It wasn't.  And it isn't much more than that now.  And firing your missile where you can't keep a lock only means your missile will go ballistic and just hit the ground or lock onto the sun.  You keep trying to require the A-7 to gain altitude and fly a straight and level flight at at least 10K.  Even today's F-15E would have trouble bagging a 1980 A-7E sucking the terrain using Missiles.  It would end up using gun passes.  And that A-7 is one tough bird and may absorb all the rounds from the F-15Es gun.  And that A-7 does have teeth of his own.  Like I said, chances are, the F-15 Driver will probably disengage and allow the A-7 to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game over in these links--sorry
> --AND--AND the F15 is more maneuverable than the F4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --I've said it before and you did not or would not listen--here in these links =
> ====the MIGs were more maneuverable than the F4s---this is what you are saying about the A7---yet *the F4s had the HIGHER kill rate*
> 
> '''''The single-engine MiGs were half the size of the F-4 and *more agile.*''''
> 
> _''''''The performance of each aircraft demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses. The agile MiG-21 was __*deadly in a turn, *__and its silhouette was difficult to acquire visually at any great distance. The heavy F-4 was known for jet engines that produced a great deal of smoke, adding to the ease of identification at a distance due to its* large size*. The MiG-21 was generally considered __*more maneuverable,*__ while the Phantom was well-armed with missiles and more lethal with the addition of the cannon'''''.
> 
> '''''The *big, burly* Phantom weighed nearly 19 tons, while the MiG-21 weighed slightly less than 10 tons''_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Against the MiGs in Vietnam - Air Force Magazine
> 
> 
> US airmen were clearly more capable, but the North Vietnamese held several advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforcemag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War Death Match: America's F-4 Phantom vs. Russia's MiG-21 (Who Wins?)
> 
> 
> Whose fighter was better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam Air War's Great Kill-Ratio Debate
> 
> 
> Data shows that American fighter planes performed poorly vs. the enemy early in the war—or does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historynet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary mission of the f-4 was Topcap.  I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB with the ACs.  Our Sister Squadron was the Infamous Triple Nickle.  Before the ACs arrival, the Triple Nickels were Air Interdiction, not ground attack.  Their job was to escort Thuds from various bases into Hanoi and keep the Migs off the Nickles.  Even though the A-7 carried 2 Aim-9s, his primary job was ground attack.  Of course the F-4 would have a higher kill total.  But the Navy didn't send Topcap with their "A-7s.  If the A-7 flight got jumped, X number would pickle their load and go Topcap..  And they were quite successful.
> 
> The reason the Mig-17 was successful against the F-4 was for the same reason that the A-7 could hang with the F-4 in an up close dogfight.  It forced the F-4 to fight it's fight.  The Red Flag didn't end it but it certainly slowed things down and got a higher kill rate for the F-4.
> 
> You can't win this one.  History can't be changed just because you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> successful???? --the F4 had a higher kill rate!!!!!!!!!!!????????
> it's right THERE!  the less maneuverable plane had the higher kill rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-4 pilots were trained for Topcap.  The A-7 pilots were not.  the fact that the A-7 had a better than a 1 to 1 kill rate speaks volumes about the quality of both the A-7 and the Slufs Pilots.  The A-7 jokies didn't attend either Red Flag nor Top Gun.  And until the F-4 pilots did,  they weren't faring any better than the Slufs.  And not one single North Vietnam Pilot ever attended either Red Flag or Top Gun either.  It wasn't the quality of the Aircraft, it became the quality of the Pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...first you say the A7 will be the 15 because it's more maneuverable
> NOW you say it's the pilot and tactics--THAT's what *I *said a long time ago!!!!!!..I said it was tactics and training--not maneuverability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you say that an A-7 can NEVER win against an F-15.  You are talking out both ends of your body now but mostly out the south end.  They have run simulations where even WWII Prop Jobs fair well against the most modern Fighters when you remove the BVR.  Most of the time, the modern Fighter runs out of gas and has to disengage.
> \
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit-----you people said the A7 can beat the F15/etc --no you are babbleing even MORE bullshit = you lost--like the A7
> WW2 vs F15--HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
> what you said is all there ..I'll go back and quote it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you allow the Modern Fighter to have the luxury of BVR, he will win the fight 100% of the time against a WWII, or any Attack Jet Fighter ever made.  Once something like a modern Sidewinder gets a lockon, it's a done deal.  Radar is just as deadly.  But there are ways to keep the Modern Fighter from getting his BVR situation and force him into a dog fight where he is weak.  You use the terrain whether it be mountains, hills, valleys, buildings, forests or even sand dunes.  If the modern fighter wants to fight under those conditions, he is going to be the disadvantaged and will have to slow down and still take a mile or more to make a full turn.  Meanwhile the WWII and the Attack Fighter can do that turn in, in some cases, in less than 100 feet.  The Attack Jet will be doing about Mach .95 or may be as slow as Mach .75 in the A-10s case.  The WWII Fighter won't be much slower.
> 
> The bad news for the Modern Fighter, it will take him time to spool up.  Meaning, when he hits the gas, he is going to accelerate much slower than the WWII Bird.  For just a few seconds, the WWII bird will be able to out accelerate the Modern Fighter and close the gap.  And when the Modern Fighter is trying to turn, the WWII fighter can lazily turn inside the Modern Fighter without decreasing his speed.  That means, if it's a P-51, he may be running at almost 450 mph (the optimal dogfighting speed of a F-18) and turn inside even a F-22.  Now, let's replace the P-51 with a modern A-10 at 275 knots and we will get the same results.  We can put an A-7 and get the same results as well.
> The use of Radar Missiles couldn't used due to the mission was to take out the Choppers and Choppers are almost invulnerable from Radar Missiles.  Not enough Radar Cross Section.  And due to the hot desert, the heat seekers are worthless.  It's guns only.  In that situation, the Modern Fighter can be defeated almost every time by a WW2 Front Lined Fighter or a modern Attack.
> 
> Here is a whole series of WW2 Warbird against the most Modern Fighters on a one on one
> 
> Before you laugh at these people, these are industries best made up of many fighter pilots and enthusiasts and the game is about as close to real as you can get without smelling Jet Fuel.
Click to expand...

Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation.  In fact the enemy may never be visible at all


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation.  In fact the enemy may never be visible at all



History says otherwise.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation.  In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history.  Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now.  Top gun is fake, or you are still stuck in vietnam

Lol


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation.  In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history.  Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now.
Click to expand...


Missiles launched at that range at aircraft are largely ineffective.    And I'm not "kid".   I'm 53 years old.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation.  In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history.  Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Missiles launched at that range at aircraft are largely ineffective.    And I'm not "kid".   I'm 53 years old.
Click to expand...

You are still stuck in the past.  Shit even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.   So there goes the f35 and the mother ship to the bottom in the first hour of a modern conflict.  Unless we only target third world nations like vietnam or somalia

The f35 was created to sell and spread misinformation

Carve it in stone


----------



## Silver Cat

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation.  In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history.  Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now.  Top gun is fake, or you are still stuck in vietnam
> 
> Lol
Click to expand...

Some missiles are launched from 200 miles away, but from this distance they can hit only large, slow and non-maneuverable targets in very good conditions. Normal modern fighters can avoid incoming missiles. Or (speaking, for example, about China) even previous generation fighters can be too numerous.


----------



## esalla

Silver Cat said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually dogfighting is impossible in a modern situation.  In fact the enemy may never be visible at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it kid the next war can not be won in history.  Grow up missiles are launched from 100 miles away now.  Top gun is fake, or you are still stuck in vietnam
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some missiles are launched from 200 miles away, but from this distance they can hit only large, slow and non-maneuverable targets in very good conditions. Normal modern fighters can avoid incoming missiles. Or (speaking, for example, about China) even previous generation fighters can be too numerous.
Click to expand...

Actually we launch those missiles too and they are expected to work.  Shit the pilot is actually optional now I assume you all know


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone



Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
Click to expand...

Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
Click to expand...


And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch. 

They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
Click to expand...

Kid the missiles can be launched from the mainland.  Remember the carrier has to get into jet range to operate.  Hypersonic missiles have no such restriction.  Carriers would all be sunk inside of an hour of threatening a real adversary.

You might want to get your head out of the past


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
Click to expand...










						Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
					

“Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.




					www.popularmechanics.com
				




1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
Click to expand...


And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
Click to expand...

Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
Click to expand...







Then why is china building them?


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
Click to expand...

To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
Click to expand...







Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
Click to expand...


Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.
Click to expand...







So are the interceptors.  They are short range high velocity anti air missiles.  The Seawolf used by Great Britain is one example.  To test them they intercept 4.5"
shells fired by their destroyers.  The USA developed the SPRINT IBM interceptor.  That sucker goes from 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds.  Old tech that can be redone with more modern tech.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are the interceptors.  They are short range high velocity anti air missiles.  The Seawolf used by Great Britain is one example.  To test them they intercept 4.5"
> shells fired by their destroyers.  The USA developed the SPRINT IBM interceptor.  That sucker goes from 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds.  Old tech that can be redone with more modern tech.
Click to expand...


Yes.   But those aren't continuously thrusting missiles.    Which means they lack maneuverability the further they go into their flights.


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
Click to expand...

Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.

How would a carrier attack Russia or China?   









						Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
					

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.




					www.theamericanconservative.com


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...


U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
Click to expand...

No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are the interceptors.  They are short range high velocity anti air missiles.  The Seawolf used by Great Britain is one example.  To test them they intercept 4.5"
> shells fired by their destroyers.  The USA developed the SPRINT IBM interceptor.  That sucker goes from 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds.  Old tech that can be redone with more modern tech.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.   But those aren't continuously thrusting missiles.    Which means they lack maneuverability the further they go into their flights.
Click to expand...





Actually,  they are.  The Sprint had a range of 19 miles and the Seawolf is around 8 miles.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...









First off you don't seem to understand that carriers operate as part of a group of ships and subs.

The first thing I would do is sink the Chinese navy.

All of it.  Then I would take every one of the little bases they are building in the south china sea.

Institute a naval blockade and watch their economy collapse.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
Click to expand...







That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
Click to expand...


No attack like that has ever been launched.    So you are trumping a hypothetical capability. 

And if it takes 1,000 anti ship missiles to destroy a single carrier then the U.S. has already won the war.


----------



## harmonica

....again, you are playing board games---the carriers have not been sunk, have they.?....can they be?--sure---
---but they have had SAMs for a LONG time!  and we still used aircraft in Nam when they had SAMs.....we used aircraft in Iraq, etc etc etc....planes were shot down--that's part of combat....
....the Brits used carriers in the Falklands while the enemy had Exocets


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...

see my previous post


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
Click to expand...

what enemy??  Iraq? Iran?


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...

....that's what land based air is for--to take out those anti-ship missile sites and/or render them useless/etc
...and Tomahawks
...you people are playing board games....there is so much *more to it*


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off you don't seem to understand that carriers operate as part of a group of ships and subs.
> 
> The first thing I would do is sink the Chinese navy.
> 
> All of it.  Then I would take every one of the little bases they are building in the south china sea.
> 
> Institute a naval blockade and watch their economy collapse.
Click to expand...

The Chinese navy is 3 times as large as the American navy or 20 times as large as the American navy if you include the armed merchant ships.  Furthermore the chinese navy has nothing to do with land based missiles that will sink any attacking carrier.  So tell us how would a battle group shoot down 1000 or more anti ship missiles arriving simultaneously?

The carrier is the most useless platform imaginable at this point









						Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
					

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.




					www.theamericanconservative.com


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
Click to expand...

Not my scenario kid

But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.

Yawning









						Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
					

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.




					www.theamericanconservative.com


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No attack like that has ever been launched.    So you are trumping a hypothetical capability.
> 
> And if it takes 1,000 anti ship missiles to destroy a single carrier then the U.S. has already won the war.
Click to expand...

So in your mind an attack will come from restored Japanese Zeroes?

You are living in the past and anti ship missiles are not hypothetical, we have them too but can not sink the carriers that Russia knows are useless anyway.   Only the USA has 11 supertanker sized ocean targets that ate tracked by the enemy 100 percent of the time

LOL can they hide if they leave Pearl Harbor?  They did, but no more









						Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
					

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.




					www.theamericanconservative.com


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what enemy??  Iraq? Iran?
Click to expand...

China or Russia, or both.  You are familiar with them correct?


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....that's what land based air is for--to take out those anti-ship missile sites and/or render them useless/etc
> ...and Tomahawks
> ...you people are playing board games....there is so much *more to it*
Click to expand...

Again a carrier has to get within a few hundred miles of an enemy to give it's aircraft enough range to fly, once the aircraft strike thousands of antiship missiles fly in from various places including land, sea and space where the carrier is a big bullseye 








						Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
					

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.




					www.theamericanconservative.com
				












						All of the Reasons America's Aircraft Carriers Are Doomed
					

We know how to kill aircraft carriers—or at least we know how best to try to kill aircraft carriers. Submarine-launched torpedoes, cruise missiles fired from a variety of platforms and ballistic missiles can all give an aircraft carrier a very bad day.




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No attack like that has ever been launched.    So you are trumping a hypothetical capability.
> 
> And if it takes 1,000 anti ship missiles to destroy a single carrier then the U.S. has already won the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your mind an attack will come from restored Japanese Zeroes?
> 
> You are living in the past and anti ship missiles are not hypothetical, we have them too but can not sink the carriers that Russia knows are useless anyway.   Only the USA has 11 supertanker sized ocean targets that ate tracked by the enemy 100 percent of the time
> 
> LOL can they hide if they leave Pearl Harbor?  They did, but no more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...


Actually the U.S. Navy has known how to conceal a carrier battle group for decades from both aerial surveillance and from satellites.    Check out the NATO naval exercises in 1981 when a NATO fleet led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower of 83 ships avoided detection by Soviet aircraft and two Soviet satellites  launched to track it.    The fleet sailed all the way to near the Kola Peninsula without being detected.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No attack like that has ever been launched.    So you are trumping a hypothetical capability.
> 
> And if it takes 1,000 anti ship missiles to destroy a single carrier then the U.S. has already won the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your mind an attack will come from restored Japanese Zeroes?
> 
> You are living in the past and anti ship missiles are not hypothetical, we have them too but can not sink the carriers that Russia knows are useless anyway.   Only the USA has 11 supertanker sized ocean targets that ate tracked by the enemy 100 percent of the time
> 
> LOL can they hide if they leave Pearl Harbor?  They did, but no more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the U.S. Navy has known how to conceal a carrier battle group for decades from both aerial surveillance and from satellites.    Check out the NATO naval exercises in 1981 when a NATO fleet led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower of 83 ships avoided detection by Soviet aircraft and two Soviet satellites  launched to track it.    The fleet sailed all the way to near the Kola Peninsula without being detected.
Click to expand...

Again kid you are stuck in the past.  Lol 1981

Avoided 2 soviet satellites, now there are tens of thousands covering every square inch of the earth and resolution is improved millions of times

You are agreeing with me you know


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Avoided 2 soviet satellites, now there are tens of thousands covering every square inch of the earth and resolution is improved millions of times



Prove it.    By citing a reliable source.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoided 2 soviet satellites, now there are tens of thousands covering every square inch of the earth and resolution is improved millions of times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.    By citing a reliable source.
Click to expand...

No need to prove that what happened in 1981 is no longer state of the art.

PS.  Tom Cruise has never flown a navy jet.  He ask, they laughed at him.

Lol do you believe that you determine what is real and or what constitutes proof?  You do not what you did is babble that 2 obsolete satellites from the defunct soviet union are equal to 10000 modern russian and chinese satellites.

Really rather comical


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> You do not what you did is babble that 2 obsolete satellites from the defunct soviet union are equal to 10000 modern russian and chinese satellites.



Prove there are " 10,000 modern Russian and Chinese satellites".

Otherwise just admit you are a stupid liar.  
Your posts are way too ignorant to be comical.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not what you did is babble that 2 obsolete satellites from the defunct soviet union are equal to 10000 modern russian and chinese satellites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there are " 10,000 modern Russian and Chinese satellites".
> 
> Otherwise just admit you are a stupid liar.
> Your posts are way too ignorant to be comical.
Click to expand...

So you believe that I answer to you.  I answer to no one

Kinda cool actually

Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way

Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way
> 
> Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.



Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.

Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981.   But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way
> 
> Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.
> 
> Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981.   But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.
Click to expand...

Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets 

You are a confused 8 year old


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off you don't seem to understand that carriers operate as part of a group of ships and subs.
> 
> The first thing I would do is sink the Chinese navy.
> 
> All of it.  Then I would take every one of the little bases they are building in the south china sea.
> 
> Institute a naval blockade and watch their economy collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Chinese navy is 3 times as large as the American navy or 20 times as large as the American navy if you include the armed merchant ships.  Furthermore the chinese navy has nothing to do with land based missiles that will sink any attacking carrier.  So tell us how would a battle group shoot down 1000 or more anti ship missiles arriving simultaneously?
> 
> The carrier is the most useless platform imaginable at this point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...









The Chinese navy has 56 vessels that pose a threat.  That is how many subs they have.  All the rest are merely targets that have no chance against our carrier battle group.  The subs do pose a legitimate threat though.  Which is why our subs keep a very close eye on them.  and because we do, we know where they are and can sink them at a moments notice.  I do find your fantasy of 1000 missiles arriving at the same time to be quite humorous.  First off, they don't have that many, and secondly you have to figure a 50% failure rate right off the top because chinese stuff sucks.

That leaves maybe 200 that actually get off the ground.  200 is difficult to deal with, but possible.  Now kid, go play your video games.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way
> 
> Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.
> 
> Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981.   But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets
> 
> You are a confused 8 year old
Click to expand...


Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit.  Radio,  radar what have you.   Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder. 

To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations,   carefully planned course changes will do the trick.   Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time.    Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
Click to expand...








What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.

Kid.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way
> 
> Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.
> 
> Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981.   But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets
> 
> You are a confused 8 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit.  Radio,  radar what have you.   Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder.
> 
> To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations,   carefully planned course changes will do the trick.   Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time.    Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.
Click to expand...

Lol and satellites run visual scans that do not require any radar use.  You have the carrier the shitty f35 all mixed up.

But you will never know


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
Click to expand...

So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.

Okeedokee


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way
> 
> Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.
> 
> Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981.   But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets
> 
> You are a confused 8 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit.  Radio,  radar what have you.   Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder.
> 
> To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations,   carefully planned course changes will do the trick.   Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time.    Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol and satellites run visual scans that do not require any radar use.
Click to expand...


Detecting something visually is even more difficult that detecting something by radar.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
Click to expand...






No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can you explain how 2 long defunct and lost or fallen soviet satellites are still relevant to modern battle in any way
> 
> Now by my quick calculations the 2 main enemies of the usa have increased satellite coverage by approximately 25,000 percent since 1981.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide proof or admit you are an ignorant liar.
> 
> Of course satellite technology has advanced since 1981.   But so have stealth and concealment techniques which were still in their infancy back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol how do carriers use stealth. Do they cover themselves in radar, sonar absorbing blankets
> 
> You are a confused 8 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most carrier and battlegroup detection is by detecting the signals they emit.  Radio,  radar what have you.   Eliminate those emissions and finding a carrier battle group is almost infinitely harder.
> 
> To avoid actual satellite and aerial observations,   carefully planned course changes will do the trick.   Satellites have mostly fixed and predictable orbits and can directly observe only relatively narrow areas of the Earths surface at any one time.    Changing course at the right times can enable ships and entire fleets to avoid satellite observation entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol and satellites run visual scans that do not require any radar use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Detecting something visually is even more difficult that detecting something by radar.
Click to expand...






Satellites detect the wakes of the ships.  It is a very highly advanced science now.


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
Click to expand...

How would a carrier group respond to that situation?

Well that's obvious, by sinking

This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
Click to expand...

So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
Click to expand...







Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.

Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
Click to expand...

Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it


----------



## AZrailwhale

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.
Click to expand...

Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable.  It's an oxymoron.  Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns.  A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
Click to expand...


But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
“I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.









						‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
					

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...




					www.duffelblog.com
				




*‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable.  It's an oxymoron.  Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns.  A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.
Click to expand...

Anti ship missiles do not need be really large as even a small hole at the water line that does not sink the vessel forces retreat


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
Click to expand...








Of course they are mounting.  But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable.  It's an oxymoron.  Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns.  A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti ship missiles do not need be really large as even a small hole at the water line that does not sink the vessel forces retreat
Click to expand...







That is false.  An Exocet hitting a New Jersey class battleship won't do anything more than make a BONG sound when it bounces off the armor.  The same missile hitting a aircraft carrier will make the same BONG sound.


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are mounting.  But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.
Click to expand...

LOL tanks are also useless against enemies with drone weapons.  How are  you going to invade China or Russia with tanks?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  technically when they talk about "hypersonic missiles" they are not talking about existing missiles or shells that already travel at hypersonic velocities.    The thing is with the "hypersonic missiles" that everyone refers to developing is for missiles that can travel at hypersonic speeds AT CONTINOUS THRUST meaning they are still highly maneuverable even at the end of their flights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing hypersonic is highly maneuverable.  It's an oxymoron.  Missile are very lightly built even something small like a sidewinder can't make high gee turns.  A big anti ship missile would tear itself in half trying to make any abrupt course change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti ship missiles do not need be really large as even a small hole at the water line that does not sink the vessel forces retreat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is false.  An Exocet hitting a New Jersey class battleship won't do anything more than make a BONG sound when it bounces off the armor.  The same missile hitting a aircraft carrier will make the same BONG sound.
Click to expand...

A. Russia and China do not use French toy weapons
B. There is no NJ class battleship.  The NJ is an Iowa class ship.
C. Next


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
Click to expand...

CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are mounting.  But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL tanks are also useless against enemies with drone weapons.  How are  you going to invade China or Russia with tanks?
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Click to expand...







Yeah, that's what you children keep saying.  And you keep getting proved wrong.

Good bye little kid.

Grow up some more.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
Click to expand...

No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid

Really


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are mounting.  But, just like the fools who claimed the era of the tank was over when the Sagger made its appearance, so too are the idiots who claim the aircraft carrier is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL tanks are also useless against enemies with drone weapons.  How are  you going to invade China or Russia with tanks?
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what you children keep saying.  And you keep getting proved wrong.
> 
> Good bye little kid.
> 
> Grow up some more.
Click to expand...

Says the clown who knows about NJ class battleships.


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
Click to expand...

Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
Click to expand...

No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
Click to expand...

There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?








						As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
					

We take a look.




					nationalinterest.org
				












						With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
					

The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
> 
> 
> We take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

OK now you are being willfully stupid.  You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage.  Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are?  Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting?  Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis?  Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid.  You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
> 
> 
> We take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK now you are being willfully stupid.  You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage.  Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are?  Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting?  Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis?  Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid.  You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.
Click to expand...

Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.

No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are.  Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?

No you obviously were not


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what enemy??  Iraq? Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China or Russia, or both.  You are familiar with them correct?
Click to expand...

hahahhahhah thank you --you fkd up!!!
1. the big one--the carriers have been used numerous times for various options--but how many times against Russia or China!!!!!!!????????--do you understand the point?

--a.no use against Russia or even China directly --I guess you could count the Korean War--but that was WAY back in 1953!! -SO, even if they do have these MAGIC MISSILES--no problem....we usually don't use them against China, Russia, or [ HAHAHAHAHAHHHAH ] BOTH!!!  hahahhaha

--b. so they are useful for 99.99999% of the ''enemies'' we use them against

--c.. I have links also to refute your links








						China Wants The Navy To Think Its Anti-Ship Missiles Are A Dire Threat (But Are They Really?)
					

We take a look behind China's arsenal.




					nationalinterest.org
				



.

2. war with both China and Russia---*THOUSANDS* of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
GODAMN it, kid-----get out of your parents' basement and stop playing those PC games like _Harpoon_/etc


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what enemy??  Iraq? Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China or Russia, or both.  You are familiar with them correct?
Click to expand...

..allow me to reiterate---war with both China and Russia!!!!! = insane/idiotic scenario
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA
....you must be spaced out from all those PC games you play-

THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!  = insane


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
> 
> 
> We take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK now you are being willfully stupid.  You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage.  Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are?  Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting?  Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis?  Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid.  You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.
> 
> No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are.  Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?
> 
> No you obviously were not
Click to expand...







No it doesn't you idiot.  There is this thing called "in flight refueling"  Talk about a know nothing.  You are it.


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what enemy??  Iraq? Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China or Russia, or both.  You are familiar with them correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahhah thank you --you fkd up!!!
> 1. the big one--the carriers have been used numerous times for various options--but how many times against Russia or China!!!!!!!????????--do you understand the point?
> 
> --a.no use against Russia or even China directly --I guess you could count the Korean War--but that was WAY back in 1953!! -SO, even if they do have these MAGIC MISSILES--no problem....we usually don't use them against China, Russia, or [ HAHAHAHAHAHHHAH ] BOTH!!!  hahahhaha
> 
> --b. so they are useful for 99.99999% of the ''enemies'' we use them against
> 
> --c.. I have links also to refute your links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Wants The Navy To Think Its Anti-Ship Missiles Are A Dire Threat (But Are They Really?)
> 
> 
> We take a look behind China's arsenal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 2. war with both China and Russia---*THOUSANDS* of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
> GODAMN it, kid-----get out of your parents' basement and stop playing those PC games like _Harpoon_/etc
> View attachment 411790
Click to expand...

Time for your tranquilizers


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what enemy??  Iraq? Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China or Russia, or both.  You are familiar with them correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..allow me to reiterate---war with both China and Russia!!!!! = insane/idiotic scenario
> HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA
> ....you must be spaced out from all those PC games you play-
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!  = insane
Click to expand...










						‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
					

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...




					www.duffelblog.com
				




Was Charlie in a hole along the ho chi minh trail really a threat to any carrier?   What about Iraqi scud missiles, or camels in Afghanistan?

Yawn, no carrier lives 60 minutes in an all out war


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
> 
> 
> We take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK now you are being willfully stupid.  You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage.  Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are?  Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting?  Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis?  Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid.  You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.
> 
> No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are.  Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?
> 
> No you obviously were not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't you idiot.  There is this thing called "in flight refueling"  Talk about a know nothing.  You are it.
Click to expand...

Really in flight refueling over the enemy

Great idea kiddy

You ought to produce top gun 3

Where John McCain crashes 5 more times


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
Click to expand...








Seawolf does you silly child.  Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.


----------



## westwall

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
> 
> 
> We take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK now you are being willfully stupid.  You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage.  Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are?  Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting?  Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis?  Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid.  You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.
> 
> No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are.  Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?
> 
> No you obviously were not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't you idiot.  There is this thing called "in flight refueling"  Talk about a know nothing.  You are it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really in flight refueling over the enemy
> 
> Great idea kiddy
> 
> You ought to produce top gun 3
> 
> Where John McCain crashes 5 more times
Click to expand...








John mccain was a drunk, and not a very good pilot.  You should learn something before you spout off more kiddo.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
Click to expand...


The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.

1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.

The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.



Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
AGM-158 JASSM[170]
SPEAR 3[164]
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
SOM

Anti-ship missiles:
AGM-158C LRASM[384]

Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.  

The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.  

If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.

I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
> 
> 
> We take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK now you are being willfully stupid.  You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage.  Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are?  Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting?  Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis?  Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid.  You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.
> 
> No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are.  Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?
> 
> No you obviously were not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't you idiot.  There is this thing called "in flight refueling"  Talk about a know nothing.  You are it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really in flight refueling over the enemy
> 
> Great idea kiddy
> 
> You ought to produce top gun 3
> 
> Where John McCain crashes 5 more times
Click to expand...

THOUSANDS of missiles ...at war with China and Russia
...you are definitely out of reality 
...it's a common problem--people not thinking realistically


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawolf does you silly child.  Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.
Click to expand...

Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.

Answer ZERO.  However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades.  Why no attacks on Russia or China?

Because the carrier would be sunk inside of an hour.  Seriously you clowns going back to the 80's to prove something is completely nerdy


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "under radar" when you have AEW aircraft like Hawkeyes or Sentinels.  They can operate hundreds of miles in advance of a task force and provide missile targeting data via data link.  The ships never need to even see the missiles they are destroying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of miles which way?  500 miles is under 5 minutes at 1.7 miles per second.  Would the attack come from land or sea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?
> 
> 
> We take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's new chief got an earful from Capitol Hill about the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK now you are being willfully stupid.  You are the one positing multiple thousands of launchers all launching for a TOT barrage.  Don't you think that the US which has more and better satellite coverage than China will know where at least the majority of those missile launchers are?  Or that we will know exactly where every ship in the PLAN is before we start fighting?  Or do you think we are so stupid that we won't align our defenses along the threat axis?  Hey, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Sadam all thought we were stupid.  You might reflect on what happened to them before making the same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again in order to attack the enemy the carrier needs to get inside of 500 miles of the target.
> 
> No the USA does not know where all of Chinas missiles are.  Are you aware that many are actually on cargo ships?
> 
> No you obviously were not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't you idiot.  There is this thing called "in flight refueling"  Talk about a know nothing.  You are it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really in flight refueling over the enemy
> 
> Great idea kiddy
> 
> You ought to produce top gun 3
> 
> Where John McCain crashes 5 more times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles ...at war with China and Russia
> ...you are definitely out of reality
> ...it's a common problem--people not thinking realistically
Click to expand...

China has multiple thousands of various missiles actually.  You are living in denial of reality









						How China Would Use Anti-Ship Missiles Against the Navy
					

A terrible war it would be.




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
Click to expand...

A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.  

Number of nations sold the F22

One, the USA


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawolf does you silly child.  Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.
> 
> Answer ZERO.  However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades.  Why no attacks on Russia or China?
Click to expand...


We   haven't used F-22s,  B-2s,  B-1Bs,  B-52s,   Tomahawk cruise missiles or  Predator drones (to name just a handful of weapons systems) against Russia or China either.    Can you seriously suggest all of those are useless? 

Your condescension of other posters here is beyond disgusting.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure
Click to expand...


The F-35 was never intended to be able to take off vertically fully fueled.    A Harrier can't either.


----------



## AZrailwhale

The counterforce strikes wouldn’t be coming from the carriers.  They would be a mix of hundreds or thousands of air launched cruise missiles from B-52s, B-1s and B-2s and sub launched land attack missiles from the four OFMG converted Ohio SSGNs.  They carry 154 land attack Tomahawks EACH.  That’s six hundred and sixteen missiles just from those four undiscoverable platforms.  That’s not counting the 656 active ballistic missiles armed with MIRVs in the inventory.  Any Chinese war with the USA would be short and spectacular.  Your “thousands” of hypersonic missiles would never get a chance to launch.  Your armed merchant ships are sitting ducks and are constantly broadcasting their positions via locators so the search areas to destroy them would be small.  The only way they could contribute to a war would be launching nuclear tipped missiles which would result in the total destruction of China by the six hundred and fifty six US missiles each carrying between three and six warheads.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawolf does you silly child.  Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.
> 
> Answer ZERO.  However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades.  Why no attacks on Russia or China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We   haven't used F-22s,  B-2s,  B-1Bs,  B-52s,   Tomahawk cruise missiles or  Predator drones (to name just a handful of weapons systems) against Russia or China either.    Can you seriously suggest all of those are useless?
> 
> Your condescension of other posters here is beyond disgusting.
Click to expand...







They are a child.  They are rude because they are insecure.


----------



## verker

Indofred said:


> Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run?



This are new shit even it is super planes ... prefers F-16 and F-18 ...


----------



## esalla

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you seriously think any US opponent could mass 1,000 surface to surface launchers.  The old Soviet Union couldn't even mass that much fire power.  Not to mention the minor problem of actually targeting US forces which are equipped with electronic counter measures equipment and very competent at using it.  Hawkeyes can spoof incoming missiles to think a task force is hundreds of miles away from it's real location, and frigates can make themselves look like aircraft carriers.  In the modern world, numbers of missiles don't count. electronic warfare counts.  Modern weapons can kill anything they can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does not matter, if even a hundred come in at a time emptying the phalanx type guns it would work.  LOL by the way China has thousands if not tens of thousands of such launchers and missiles.  I do not think this I know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CIWS isn't all the USN has.  IF your mythological attack ever happened, the missiles would be engaged four or five hundred miles from the task force by missile armed fighters.  Once the missiles got past the fighters, they would be engaged by ER Standards well beyond the radar horizon. Once the survivors got past the ER engagement zone they would be engaged by Standard SAMs, after the survivors got past the Standards, they would be engaged by five inch guns, After that by the three inch guns on the frigates and finally the few survivors would be killed by the CIWS mounts.  It's called a layered defense.  And even that's assuming that any of the launchers survived the attacks by cruise and ballistic missiles on the fixed launchers.  We know where they are and would destroy them before sending carriers into their ranges.  China is a paper tiger to use it's own vernacular.  It hasn't fought a war against a peer level opponent in centuries.  It's navy that you are so proud of is a bunch of destroyers, frigates and missile boats that can't target or engage opponents beyond the radar horizon.  China is spending a lot of money on expensive toys, but developing a navy takes decades of intense work and a winning navy needs traditions that China lacks.  China MIGHT be able to defend it's littorals. but it's a long way from projecting power.  Why else would it be wasting so much time and energy trying to turn sandbars into fortified airfields in the South China Sea?  Hint: sandbars are harder to destroy than ships and the PLAN knows it so they will keep their expensive toys in harbor while the PLAF tries to gain aerial parity over the SCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one engages a missile skimming the ocean under radar.  SAM's, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you need a radar profile for those kid
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawolf does you silly child.  Waaaaay back in the Falklands war, long before you were born the Seawolf was the terror of the Argentinian Air Force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us kiddy, how many aircraft carriers have launched air attacks against nuclear and hypersonic missile equipped nations.
> 
> Answer ZERO.  However carriers can attack North Korea in the 50's then Vietnam and Iraq with it's deadly scud missile and then there were the attacks on Afghanistan camel brigades.  Why no attacks on Russia or China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We   haven't used F-22s,  B-2s,  B-1Bs,  B-52s,   Tomahawk cruise missiles or  Predator drones (to name just a handful of weapons systems) against Russia or China either.    Can you seriously suggest all of those are useless?
> 
> Your condescension of other posters here is beyond disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are a child.  They are rude because they are insecure.
Click to expand...

Apple and google are up. 

Yawning


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
Click to expand...


If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.

As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
Click to expand...


If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.

As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
Click to expand...

Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has, including one that has been flying, this makes no sense at all?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface









						"No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat" Eurofighter test pilot says
					

Lockheed Martin claims F-35 kinematics are "better than or equal to" Eurofighter Typhoon. A Eurofighter test pilot disagrees. In an interesting piece by




					theaviationist.com
				












						Germany officially knocks F-35 out of competition to replace Tornado
					

An official from the ministry confirmed that the F-35 is not a finalist in the competition, which seeks a replacement for the 90-jet fleet.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
Click to expand...


And exactly what launched those anti-ship missiles?  Were the launched from stealth ships?  How about sooper secrit underwater bases.  And I guess all the support ship's' defense weapons and such were at the cleaners at the time as well.  Newsflash, twinkletoes:  the DFS26 is a paper weapon.


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
Click to expand...

You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And exactly what launched those anti-ship missiles?  Were the launched from stealth ships?  How about sooper secrit underwater bases.  And I guess all the support ship's' defense weapons and such were at the cleaners at the time as well.  Newsflash, twinkletoes:  the DFS26 is a paper weapon.
> [/QUOT
> if the chicoms ever manageto produce the DF21, the US will be able to deploy space based KEWs.  Both have about the same level of difficulty.
Click to expand...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
Click to expand...


What he is describing is a part of WWIII.  I don't believe that Chairman Xi is that insane.  And even Putin isn't that nuts.  Okay, maybe Rump might have been but that's being dealt with.  But it would take insanity from pretty much all 3 to start WWIII.  And even Rump would have to see the polls before he would do anything that stupid.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And exactly what launched those anti-ship missiles?  Were the launched from stealth ships?  How about sooper secrit underwater bases.  And I guess all the support ship's' defense weapons and such were at the cleaners at the time as well.  Newsflash, twinkletoes:  the DFS26 is a paper weapon.
Click to expand...

No the missiles were launched from shore and they have at least a 900 mile range and the ship has to be in jet range of land.  They are also mobile not fixed so there is no target to knock out

Really or do you imagine hundreds of air tankers hovering

LOL this is all funny you know


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And exactly what launched those anti-ship missiles?  Were the launched from stealth ships?  How about sooper secrit underwater bases.  And I guess all the support ship's' defense weapons and such were at the cleaners at the time as well.  Newsflash, twinkletoes:  the DFS26 is a paper weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the missiles were launched from shore and they have at least a 900 mile range and the ship has to be in jet range of land.
> 
> Really or do you imagine hundreds of air tankers hovering
> 
> LOL this is all funny you know
Click to expand...

We all notice that you just ignore the heavy bomber and SSGN launched missile storm that would devastate your country and destroy most of your launchers long before the carriers arrived.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What he is describing is a part of WWIII.  I don't believe that Chairman Xi is that insane.  And even Putin isn't that nuts.  Okay, maybe Rump might have been but that's being dealt with.  But it would take insanity from pretty much all 3 to start WWIII.  And even Rump would have to see the polls before he would do anything that stupid.
Click to expand...

Are you going to help Hunter Biden suck chinese wang


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What he is describing is a part of WWIII.  I don't believe that Chairman Xi is that insane.  And even Putin isn't that nuts.  Okay, maybe Rump might have been but that's being dealt with.  But it would take insanity from pretty much all 3 to start WWIII.  And even Rump would have to see the polls before he would do anything that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you going to help Hunter Biden suck chinese wang
Click to expand...


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And exactly what launched those anti-ship missiles?  Were the launched from stealth ships?  How about sooper secrit underwater bases.  And I guess all the support ship's' defense weapons and such were at the cleaners at the time as well.  Newsflash, twinkletoes:  the DFS26 is a paper weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the missiles were launched from shore and they have at least a 900 mile range and the ship has to be in jet range of land.
> 
> Really or do you imagine hundreds of air tankers hovering
> 
> LOL this is all funny you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all notice that you just ignore the heavy bomber and SSGN launched missile storm that would devastate your country and destroy most of your launchers long before the carriers arrived.
Click to expand...

Nah my point is that as a first strike weapon any carrier is useless against a real enemy.  But again one may use a carrier to attack the camels in Afghanistan.  That's is why Russia does not depend on old tech like the carrier.  LOL bye the way the Ford can't get out of it's own way or lift a single jet as the elevators are stuck

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Flushing billions


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And exactly what launched those anti-ship missiles?  Were the launched from stealth ships?  How about sooper secrit underwater bases.  And I guess all the support ship's' defense weapons and such were at the cleaners at the time as well.  Newsflash, twinkletoes:  the DFS26 is a paper weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the missiles were launched from shore and they have at least a 900 mile range and the ship has to be in jet range of land.
> 
> Really or do you imagine hundreds of air tankers hovering
> 
> LOL this is all funny you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all notice that you just ignore the heavy bomber and SSGN launched missile storm that would devastate your country and destroy most of your launchers long before the carriers arrived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah my point is that as a first strike weapon any carrier is useless against a real enemy.  But again one may use a carrier to attack the camels in Afghanistan.  That's is why Russia does not depend on old tech like the carrier.  LOL bye the way the Ford can't get out of it's own way or lift a single jet as the elevators are stuck
> 
> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
> 
> Flushing billions
Click to expand...


You are talking about the opening shots of WWIII.  And that is another discussion far reaching than just discussing the F-35 who will currently be a small part in that fight.  You may wish to start a new thread on that.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> No the missiles were launched from shore and they have at least a 900 mile range



And how are those extremely  long range anti ship missiles targeted?    Something many people touting the long range of missiles often forget.   Satellites aren't accurate enough.    Submarines are too vulnerable to provide targeting data.    The only thing that could provide targeting data is recon aircraft. 

And I guarantee you that in war time Chinese or Russian recon aircraft are not going to get remotely  near a carrier battle group.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the missiles were launched from shore and they have at least a 900 mile range
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how are those extremely  long range anti ship missiles targeted?    Something many people touting the long range of missiles often forget.   Satellites aren't accurate enough.    Submarines are too vulnerable to provide targeting data.    The only thing that could provide targeting data is recon aircraft.
> 
> And I guarantee you that in war time Chinese or Russian recon aircraft are not going to get remotely  near a carrier battle group.
Click to expand...

Kid and I say kid seriously because you have the mind of a child.  This is not a midway movie, no aircraft has to get anywhere near a carrier because the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.

You are thinking in the past

Now would you like to have a discussion on quantum entangled communications achieving thousands of times light speed?


----------



## harmonica

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
hahahahahhahaahahhahaah


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And exactly what launched those anti-ship missiles?  Were the launched from stealth ships?  How about sooper secrit underwater bases.  And I guess all the support ship's' defense weapons and such were at the cleaners at the time as well.  Newsflash, twinkletoes:  the DFS26 is a paper weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the missiles were launched from shore and they have at least a 900 mile range and the ship has to be in jet range of land.
> 
> Really or do you imagine hundreds of air tankers hovering
> 
> LOL this is all funny you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all notice that you just ignore the heavy bomber and SSGN launched missile storm that would devastate your country and destroy most of your launchers long before the carriers arrived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah my point is that as a first strike weapon any carrier is useless against a real enemy.  But again one may use a carrier to attack the camels in Afghanistan.  That's is why Russia does not depend on old tech like the carrier.  LOL bye the way the Ford can't get out of it's own way or lift a single jet as the elevators are stuck
> 
> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
> 
> Flushing billions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking about the opening shots of WWIII.  And that is another discussion far reaching than just discussing the F-35 who will currently be a small part in that fight.  You may wish to start a new thread on that.
Click to expand...

Actually WW3 has begun and you do not even see it


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
Click to expand...

So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.

Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
Click to expand...


And don't forget about the Cheat code.


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
Click to expand...

you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game 
THOUSANDS of missiles 
hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.




Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.

Sure.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
Click to expand...


It's a FUGE ocean out there.


----------



## Dayton3

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
Click to expand...


esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface. 

In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
Click to expand...

good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
Click to expand...


Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
Click to expand...

Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.

And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand









						The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
					

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"




					taskandpurpose.com
				












						Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
					

The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?




					www.nytimes.com
				





On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”


An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.

It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.

Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
Click to expand...

They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.

Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek

Jesus you are all infants









						Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
					

The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
Click to expand...

From the 2 Soviet satellites that were mentioned in a previous post I calculate a 25,000 percent increase in satellite coverage from when there were 2 enemy satellites.  However this is based upon satellite numbers and does not reflect increases in coverage and resolution.  You would have a better chance of hiding a 55 inch TV in your pants pocket than the military has of hiding a carrier in an ocean.

LOL Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
Click to expand...










						Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
					

The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?




					www.nytimes.com
				












						The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
					

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"




					taskandpurpose.com
				




You keep referencing Star Trek kid............................

Now you know why I call you kid

Play on kid


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
Click to expand...


I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...


Why, thank you for the compliment, Kid.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.
Click to expand...

Was the F15 literally made in Japan like the F35 is?


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, thank you for the compliment, Kid.
Click to expand...

No problem


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_ 
hahahahahah
you are the one playing games in your parents' basement


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
Click to expand...

You are the noise





__





						[2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
					





					arxiv.org
				




Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Flown by Hirohito Jr


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
Click to expand...

THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahhahahahahahahh


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Click to expand...

Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
Click to expand...

Gotten quiet huh?

Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads. You do understand the concept right?

No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace

No comment on made in Japan F35's


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the F15 literally made in Japan like the F35 is?
Click to expand...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
Click to expand...


Hey, I played Star Trek.  Remember the FASA Lead Figurines?


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
Click to expand...


Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.


----------



## Dayton3

Daryl Hunt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I played Star Trek.  Remember the FASA Lead Figurines?
Click to expand...


I loved Star Trek FASA!!!!


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the F15 literally made in Japan like the F35 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Google it, the F-35 Lightning is being made in Nagoya Japan

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa









						First Japanese-Built F-35A Officially Unveiled at Nagoya Facility | F-35 Lightning II
					

The official website of the F-35 Lightning II. The Joint Strike Fighter is the next generation fighter to support the US Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, United Kingdom and defense partners in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey.



					www.f35.com


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
Click to expand...

LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
Click to expand...


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...


And you're an URDHA.  

Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.

Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.

You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.

But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).

How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
Click to expand...


No chance.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the F15 literally made in Japan like the F35 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google it, the F-35 Lightning is being made in Nagoya Japan
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Japanese-Built F-35A Officially Unveiled at Nagoya Facility | F-35 Lightning II
> 
> 
> The official website of the F-35 Lightning II. The Joint Strike Fighter is the next generation fighter to support the US Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, United Kingdom and defense partners in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> www.f35.com
Click to expand...


Not most of them URDHA.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
Click to expand...

Chinese satellite image processing computers with AI can process millions of images in seconds a whole oceans worth in fact

You people are all stuck at Pearl Harbor

Wake up already


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
Click to expand...

LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier

OKEEDOKEE

Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
Click to expand...


I assumed that we were talking about conventional weapons only.   Even a modest nuclear warhead wouldn't have to actually hit a carrier to destroy or disable it.    Just detonating within a few miles would be sufficient.

But if we're talking about nuclear weapons the entire calculation has changed radically anyway.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assumed that we were talking about conventional weapons only.   Even a modest nuclear warhead wouldn't have to actually hit a carrier to destroy or disable it.    Just detonating within a few miles would be sufficient.
> 
> But if we're talking about nuclear weapons the entire calculation has changed radically anyway.
Click to expand...

This particular missile can be conventional to 500kt.  This is also designed specifically as an anti ship missile, pretty much with carriers names on it.

So did you know that the f35 pretend jet fighter was made in Japan? In Nagoya no less where the armory that made WW2 weapons was no less


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> So did you know that the f35 pretend jet fighter was made in Japan? In Nagoya no less where the armory that made WW2 weapons was no less



So?  Japan has been a reliable ally of the U.S. for 75 years.    They were one of the first nations we sold F-15s to.    Also one of the first nations we shared AEGIS missile  defense technology with.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did you know that the f35 pretend jet fighter was made in Japan? In Nagoya no less where the armory that made WW2 weapons was no less
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Japan has been a reliable ally of the U.S. for 75 years.    They were one of the first nations we sold F-15s to.    Also one of the first nations we shared AEGIS missile  defense technology with.
Click to expand...

I wish you could tell that to my father in law the guy with the flag on Leyte in 1945


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did you know that the f35 pretend jet fighter was made in Japan? In Nagoya no less where the armory that made WW2 weapons was no less
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Japan has been a reliable ally of the U.S. for 75 years.    They were one of the first nations we sold F-15s to.    Also one of the first nations we shared AEGIS missile  defense technology with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish you could tell that to my father in law the guy with the flag on Leyte in 1945
Click to expand...

Japan is our ally---what's the problem?


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
Click to expand...

fake---dummies like rubber tanks


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
Click to expand...

No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru

Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2

Wake up


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru
> 
> Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2
> 
> Wake up
Click to expand...

do they have *THOUSANDS* of them like in _Missile Command?_


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru
> 
> Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2
> 
> Wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they have *THOUSANDS* of them like in _Missile Command?_
Click to expand...

Yea both the Chinese and Russians both have thousands of missiles.

Must all of your references mention the games that you play?


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru
> 
> Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2
> 
> Wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they have *THOUSANDS* of them like in _Missile Command?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea both the Chinese and Russians both have thousands of missiles.
> 
> Must all of your references mention the games that you play?
Click to expand...

all THOUSANDS  of them will be aimed at ONE carrier ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
Click to expand...

American Naval vessels use dummy missiles too.


harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru
> 
> Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2
> 
> Wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they have *THOUSANDS* of them like in _Missile Command?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea both the Chinese and Russians both have thousands of missiles.
> 
> Must all of your references mention the games that you play?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all THOUSANDS  of them will be aimed at ONE carrier ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Click to expand...

Technically they would not all be aimed at the carrier but the surrounding group as well.  Dude the missiles do not all need be large or even armed as the various types of defensive missiles and guns will not have time to distinguish the differences if any are even apparent.

LOL you stick to the Pearl Harbor day reenactment


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the F15 literally made in Japan like the F35 is?
Click to expand...

Both the F-15J and F-15DJ are both built by Mitsubishi in Japan.


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
Click to expand...

The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.


----------



## verker

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the F15 literally made in Japan like the F35 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both the F-15J and F-15DJ are both built by Mitsubishi in Japan.
Click to expand...


How Japan might the military force toss back out of intermission behind WW II.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> even aircraft carriers themselves are obsolete as they have no means to shoot down 100 or more anti ship missiles simultaneously.
> 
> Carve it in stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier battle groups carry roughly three times as many anti missile missiles as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all loaded for release in one single second and if needed a real enemy could launch 1000 simultaneously.  Seriously russia does not rely on carriers for this reason as they have only 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is approximately no chance the launch platforms for 100 missiles would manage to get within range of a U.S. carrier in war time.   The entire reason for the F-14 Tomcat and Pheonix missiles was built around intercepting Soviet bombers before they could launch.
> 
> They wouldn't even have to be shot down.   If Soviet bombers detected missiles locking onto them they would jettison their missiles in order to be able to take evasive action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Hypersonic Missile Travels Nearly Two Miles a Second
> 
> 
> “Zircon” would likely be unstoppable by today’s cutting edge air defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.popularmechanics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7 miles per second.  No carrier has a lifespan over an hour
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes you think the Russians are telling the truth?   They have a long history of making extravagant claims about weapons systems and other technologies that have no basis in reality.   Russia isn't like the U.S. where entire legions of congressional and media critics line up to hold people accountable for weapons systems claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we have basically the same stuff.  The fact is that a carrier is only effective against a third world country like Afghanistan.  The last credible threat to any carrier was japan in ww2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is china building them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To take over third world countries and hong kong and taiwan perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partially.  But it is also a truism that aircraft carriers project power like nothing else on earth.  And guess what, there are already hypersonic missile interceptors out there.  Have been for a long time.  And they are very, very effective.  One of them is tested by shooting down artillery shells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly so if you can shoot down a rocket or shell you can not miss a carrier.
> 
> How would a carrier attack Russia or China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> U.S. supercarriers are proven able to survive and continue operations when hit by as many as six anti ship missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No carrier has been attacked since WW2, at that time Japan used everything it had to sink them.  Today an enemy would launch 100 to 1000 anti ship missiles all arriving within a simultaneous ten second window if needed.  So since no carrier can survive this then no carrier can attack an enemy with these missiles making the carrier USELESS in a modern conflict
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy scenario you have come up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my scenario kid
> 
> But you can prove me wrong by describing the last credible threat to a US carrier since WW2.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was that junior?  You keep talking about your mythical 1000 missile time on target barrage, and then ask me to give you the last time there was a credible threat against a US carrier battle group..... I think you just proved my point.
> 
> Kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your delusion anti ship missiles are mythical.
> 
> Okeedokee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, your thousand arriving at the same time is what is mythical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would a carrier group respond to that situation?
> 
> Well that's obvious, by sinking
> 
> This is why Russia does not rely on obsolete carriers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, squirt, your mythological attack won't happen.  The chinese don't have enough missiles for even a tenth of your supposed assault.
> 
> Stop playing those war games, they warp your thinking junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it’s a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them.
> “I think what King’s comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals
> 
> 
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Defense Tropes Quarterly announced the publication of yet another article claiming the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, obsolete, and prohibitively expensive. The piece is the latest in a long series of articles in professional military journals questioning the utility of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.duffelblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Carrier is Vulnerable and Obsolete’ according to 100 years worth of military journals*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air launched missiles always have less range than carrier launched fighters.  Hawkeyes will spot the missile carriers long before they are in range and carrier fighter will kill then before they can launch their cargos.  This will only happen in a war and the US Navy isn't stupid enough to blindly sail into range of Chinese missiles.  The USN and USAF have weapons that can obliterate fixed launchers and the sandbar airfields long before US forces need to enter their range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for air launched missiles as the carrier must get within 500 miles of the target and land based missiles work at far greater ranges than that.  Making the carrier obsolete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35C is coming online now.  I don't have the exact figures.  But let's take a look at their range loaded with internal weapons.  This includes Air to Ground Missiles.
> 
> 1367 miles without external fuel.  Now add two external fuel tanks and before it gets into range, have it meet a tanker to top if off and have it meet a tanker on the way out.  Let's do a scenario.
> 
> The F-35C launches with a full load of internal and external stores.  He launches with very little fuel.  He meets a Tanker right after launch which tops him off.  He's loaded out with two Aim-9Xs and four Aim-120s as well as a mix of the following stores.
> 
> 
> 
> Air-to-surface missiles:
> AGM-88G AARGM-ER (Block 4)
> AGM-158 JASSM[170]
> SPEAR 3[164]
> Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
> Joint Strike Missile (JSM, planned)
> SOM
> 
> Anti-ship missiles:
> AGM-158C LRASM[384]
> 
> Some of these have a 1000 mile range and are self autonamous.
> 
> The range of the loaded F-35C is now at least 2000 miles.  That means he has to get within 1000 miles of his intended target to make it home.  The carrier can lessen that by closing.  So let's say, the F-35C only has to do a 750 mile return flight with air refueling.  But he can extend that by multiple air refuelings.  That puts the Carrier out of range for attack.  And if you try and come without 1000 miles you are going to run into a hornets nest of support ships and ECM birds.
> 
> If the Chinese want at the carriers, it's going to be a bloody fight in and a bloody fight out.  Chances are, there will be a high presence of USAF involved as well with the F-22 and their refueling force and AWACs.  And don't sell the F-18s short either.  The Chinese will be greatly outnumber in both air assets and naval ships.  Entire Corridors are going to be created where the B-2 and B-1s can do their magic.
> 
> I can't see ANY logic, other than population control, that would drive China into such an insane move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fully fueled and armed F35 can not take off vertical as it was intended making the jet a total failure which is why we intended to sell it to Turkey so the Russians could tale the pile of krap apart to learn how not to build a real jet.
> 
> Number of nations sold the F22
> 
> One, the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ever seen a F-35B fully loaded take off, he takes off using both runway and his lift engine to get into the air and get his airspeed up as quickly as possible.  And then he meets a tanker whether it be a F-18 configured for as a refueler or any number of refuelers.  The same goes for the F-35C and A which can take off in REAL Monster mode carrying more ordinance than a F-16 or a F-18 ever dreamed of.  And carry it twice as far.  The F-35C used the space that the B used for it's lift fans and drive for fuel making it a very long combat ranged bird.  And it's coming online as I type this in numbers.  They don't have to get the carrier anywhere close to send even the F-18E/F/Gs since they can refuel them on the way in and on the way out.
> 
> As for the Russians being able to take the F-35 apart, their SU and Migs sold to various countries aren't doing such a hot job when the F-35A Recons are taking pictures almost directly over their runways completely undetected.  You have to see it to shoot it down.  If you don't believe me, ask the Iranians that are complaining about the Israelis overflights over Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong.  Why? Because in any emergency scramble into the air incident and those are the ones that matter there is no tanker waiting to refuel the piece of shit f35.  In such a situation you must get into the air fully fueled and armed which makes vertical takeoff impossible.  LOL the F35 is the jet that was supposed to take off like a helicopter but that takes off like a jet, it never should have been built.  From what I read the Eurofighter Typhoon is flying circles around the f35
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know anything about the Naval Procedures, they keep X number of Tankers in the air, X number of tankers on alert status 24/7.  And can generate more when needed.  And a monster loaded F-35B will NEVER be able to take off in hover mode.  But he can take off in STOVL mode.  And the requirements of both the A and the C are to be able to take off in Stovol mode in monster mode at all times.  Granted, a Tanker will have to be met but I think the Navy and the AF can meet that requirement with the tankers better than any other nation on the face of the earth.  I don't know about if it's better than the planet you come from so I won't comment on that.
> 
> As for the Typhoon flying circles around the F-35, how about a cite on that one.  Just because you say so isn't reason enough for the rest of us to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude there is no naval procedure keeping tankers in the air all the time around a carrier.  24 hours a day in all weather even while the ship is moving to a new destination.  LOL also how much more range than the fighter do you think a carrier tanker has?  But it's all irrelevant when hundreds of anti ship missiles arrive skimming the surface
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your impossible, stupid hundreds of anti-ship missiles.  Where do they come from?  Carriers aren’t going to come into their range until the defenses have been reduced by air and submarine launched cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..from his PC game..there are THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahahahhahaahahhahaah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your claim is that China has less than 1000 missiles.
> 
> Well you never were really smart but at this point your brain is struggling to figure out how to breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're too young to remember Missile Command arcade game
> THOUSANDS of missiles
> hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha
> View attachment 412514
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I remember Pong and Asteroids.
> 
> And I know that this is not relevant now as you do not seem to understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing
> 
> 
> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taskandpurpose.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the morning of June 23, 2014, an F-35 burst into flames just moments before its pilot was set to take off on a routine training mission. He heard a loud bang and felt the engine slow as warning indicators began flashing “fire” and other alerts signaled that systems in the plane were shutting down. Witnesses at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Fla., reported seeing the pilot escape from the cockpit and run away from the fighter jet, which was engulfed in thick plumes of black smoke. It was the first major mishap involving a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
> In less than a month, the F-35, America’s high-profile next-generation fighter jet, was poised to make its international debut in Britain at Farnborough Airshow, the second-largest event of its kind in the world. Officials from the Pentagon and the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, had eagerly anticipated the opportunity to show off a working, flying F-35 after a decade of delays and spiraling cost overruns.
> The F-35 initiative is the Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program ever, expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over its 60-year lifespan. It’s also the United States military’s most ambitious international partnership, with eight other nations investing in the aircraft’s development. Its advocates promised that the jet would be a game-changing force in the future of war — so much was riding on its success that a program cancellation was not an option. And yet for years it seemed as if the F-35 might never make it beyond its development phase.
> Christopher Bogdan, the Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the program at the time of the fire, received a call about the incident within the hour. His first reaction was relief that it had been detected before takeoff, a stroke of good fortune that allowed the pilot to escape uninjured. “If that engine problem would have occurred 30 seconds, 60 seconds, two minutes later, that airplane would have been airborne,” Bogdan said in a recent interview. “Heaven knows what could have happened then.”
> 
> 
> An investigation of the incident determined that a fan blade in the jet’s engine had overheated from friction and cracked, throwing off fragments of metal that punched through the fuselage, severed hydraulic and fuel lines and ignited a spray of jet fuel. Officials couldn’t guarantee that other F-35s wouldn’t have the same problem, and they didn’t want to risk a potentially catastrophic fire during a trans-Atlantic flight. The F-35 never made it to Farnborough that year, and the public-relations coup that Pentagon and Lockheed officials had hoped for turned into another round of ammunition for the plane’s critics.
> 
> It was one more bad news story for a controversial program that had been dogged by bad news.
> 
> Slowly, though, the program and its reputation have improved over the ensuing five years. Lockheed has now delivered more than 400 planes to American and foreign militaries, and the unit cost per aircraft has dropped significantly. In 2018, the F-35 completed its first combat operation for the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. The Air Force used it for airstrikes in Iraq about six months later. Later this year or in early 2020, the F-35 will go into full-rate production, with Lockheed expected to churn out 130 to 160 or more planes per year, a huge step up from the 91 planes delivered in 2018. That production milestone will be a symbolic turning point for the program, evidence that major problems that plagued the Joint Strike Fighter in the past are now history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was with the F-15 in the very beginning.  The plight of the F-15 was very similar to the F-35.  In fact, they really didn't get it ironed out until the F-15C was fully introduced and the F-15As were upgraded to the C.  And unlike the F-35 with no pilot deaths due to the AC, the F-15 had pilot deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the F15 literally made in Japan like the F35 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both the F-15J and F-15DJ are both built by Mitsubishi in Japan.
Click to expand...

Mitsubishi also has shipyards in Nagasaki






In your mind the F35 is a great jet, but when the Pentagon says that the toy plane has hundreds of faults that they can not fix it becomes a hunk of junk.  Perhaps the Pentagon is hoping that Toyota or Honda can fix the problems


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.

Unless the USA attacks camels again.

I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both

Great plan


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru
> 
> Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2
> 
> Wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they have *THOUSANDS* of them like in _Missile Command?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea both the Chinese and Russians both have thousands of missiles.
> 
> Must all of your references mention the games that you play?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all THOUSANDS  of them will be aimed at ONE carrier ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Click to expand...

Could be, the real number will never be known because sunk ships do not count


----------



## Daryl Hunt

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru
> 
> Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2
> 
> Wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they have *THOUSANDS* of them like in _Missile Command?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea both the Chinese and Russians both have thousands of missiles.
> 
> Must all of your references mention the games that you play?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all THOUSANDS  of them will be aimed at ONE carrier ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be, the real number will never be known because sunk ships do not count
Click to expand...


I think I have had enough of your nonsense, Troll.  Time to thin out the Gene Pool.  Have a nice day.


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fake---dummies like rubber tanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No real missiles with no warhead, they would take up the time and tracking mechanisms so the real warheads get thru
> 
> Dude is your entire life trapped in WW2
> 
> Wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do they have *THOUSANDS* of them like in _Missile Command?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea both the Chinese and Russians both have thousands of missiles.
> 
> Must all of your references mention the games that you play?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all THOUSANDS  of them will be aimed at ONE carrier ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be, the real number will never be known because sunk ships do not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have had enough of your nonsense, Troll.  Time to thin out the Gene Pool.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

So now that you know that the F35 is made in Japan and can't even target an enemy you are frustrated.

I understand


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
Click to expand...


Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.


----------



## Dayton3

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
Click to expand...


You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Dayton3 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
Click to expand...


Do you have any idea how difficult that is to maintain?  Every tried landing an F-18 under EMCON?  Maintain  ship formation?  Talking out of your ass again?


----------



## Dayton3

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how difficult that is to maintain?  Every tried landing an F-18 under EMCON?  Maintain  ship formation?  Talking out of your ass again?
Click to expand...


It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how difficult that is to maintain?  Every tried landing an F-18 under EMCON?  Maintain  ship formation?  Talking out of your ass again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.
Click to expand...

1981 was 40 years ago.  Why do you keep quoting the long distant past as if it is the present.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
Click to expand...

Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.

Are you from Earth?


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assumed that we were talking about conventional weapons only.   Even a modest nuclear warhead wouldn't have to actually hit a carrier to destroy or disable it.    Just detonating within a few miles would be sufficient.
Click to expand...

Actually not. 








						Operation Crossroads - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				







> But if we're talking about nuclear weapons the entire calculation has changed radically anyway.


A full scale war between two nuclear states is a nuclear war, you know.


----------



## Silver Cat

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
Click to expand...

The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.


----------



## esalla

Silver Cat said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Dayton3 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how difficult that is to maintain?  Every tried landing an F-18 under EMCON?  Maintain  ship formation?  Talking out of your ass again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.
Click to expand...


No.  Were you there?  I was on the United Effort-Northern Wedding Exercise in 1992.  What was the name of the 1991 exercise, or you talking out of your ass again?


----------



## Silver Cat

BTW. The 5M aero ballistic missile DF-17 with DF-ZF glider was first time spotted with H-6N. 
It's 5M range is near 2500 clicks, they say. Some analysts suspect that the DZ-ZF will first be used in shorter-range roles as an anti-ship missile.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.



Prove it kid.


----------



## Dayton3

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> No.  Were you there?  I was on the United Effort-Northern Wedding Exercise in 1992.  What was the name of the 1991 exercise, or you talking out of your ass again?



Provide more details regarding that exercise please.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.


1981 was 40 years ago.  Why do you keep quoting the long distant past as if it is the present.
[/QUOTE]

I knew you were going to ask that.

I bring up the 1981 exercise because due to it being detailed in a book about the U.S. Navy and at various other sources,   I know more about the details of it than later exercises,   though I do know the U.S. and allied navies did conduct similar exercises several years later (thought still in the 1980s).

The severely moribund nature of the Russian military in the 1990s made it utterly pointless to conduct such exercises.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 was 40 years ago.  Why do you keep quoting the long distant past as if it is the present.
Click to expand...


I knew you were going to ask that.

I bring up the 1981 exercise because due to it being detailed in a book about the U.S. Navy and at various other sources,   I know more about the details of it than later exercises,   though I do know the U.S. and allied navies did conduct similar exercises several years later (thought still in the 1980s).

The severely moribund nature of the Russian military in the 1990s made it utterly pointless to conduct such exercises.
[/QUOTE]
LOL most nonsense from 1981 is so remotely useless that is has also been declassified already.  At any rate satellite and missile tech increases since then make 1981 as relevant as the stone age


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 was 40 years ago.  Why do you keep quoting the long distant past as if it is the present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you were going to ask that.
> 
> I bring up the 1981 exercise because due to it being detailed in a book about the U.S. Navy and at various other sources,   I know more about the details of it than later exercises,   though I do know the U.S. and allied navies did conduct similar exercises several years later (thought still in the 1980s).
> 
> The severely moribund nature of the Russian military in the 1990s made it utterly pointless to conduct such exercises.
Click to expand...

LOL most nonsense from 1981 is so remotely useless that is has also been declassified already.  At any rate satellite and missile tech increases since then make 1981 as relevant as the stone age
[/QUOTE]

Except the Russians are far, far less active in launching satellites now than the Soviets were in 1981.    Numbers count.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 was 40 years ago.  Why do you keep quoting the long distant past as if it is the present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you were going to ask that.
> 
> I bring up the 1981 exercise because due to it being detailed in a book about the U.S. Navy and at various other sources,   I know more about the details of it than later exercises,   though I do know the U.S. and allied navies did conduct similar exercises several years later (thought still in the 1980s).
> 
> The severely moribund nature of the Russian military in the 1990s made it utterly pointless to conduct such exercises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL most nonsense from 1981 is so remotely useless that is has also been declassified already.  At any rate satellite and missile tech increases since then make 1981 as relevant as the stone age
Click to expand...


Except the Russians are far, far less active in launching satellites now than the Soviets were in 1981.    Numbers count.
[/QUOTE]
Dude the current enemy is not Russia, wake up fool



1United States$19,485,394,000,000$19.485 trillion2.27%325,084,756$59,93924.08%2China$12,237,700,479,375$12.238 trillion6.90%1,421,021,791$8,61215.12%3Japan$4,872,415,104,315$4.872 trillion1.71%127,502,725$38,2146.02%4Germany$3,693,204,332,230$3.693 trillion2.22%82,658,409$44,6804.56%5India$2,650,725,335,364$2.651 trillion6.68%1,338,676,785$1,9803.28%6United Kingdom$2,637,866,340,434$2.638 trillion1.79%66,727,461$39,5323.26%7France$2,582,501,307,216$2.583 trillion1.82%64,842,509$39,8273.19%8Brazil$2,053,594,877,013$2.054 trillion0.98%207,833,823$9,8812.54%9Italy$1,943,835,376,342$1.944 trillion1.50%60,673,701$32,0382.40%10Canada$1,647,120,175,449$1.647 trillion3.05%36,732,095$44,8412.04%11Russia$1,578,417,211,937$1.578 trillion1.55%145,530,082$10,8461.95%


----------



## Silver Cat

esalla said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
Click to expand...

But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.


----------



## verker

*Current enemy are China and NOT Russia bid from above myself.

F-35 not personal minion.

F-18 are personal minion.

F-16 are personal minion.*


----------



## esalla

Silver Cat said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
Click to expand...

In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?

Nope and they never will


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 was 40 years ago.  Why do you keep quoting the long distant past as if it is the present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you were going to ask that.
> 
> I bring up the 1981 exercise because due to it being detailed in a book about the U.S. Navy and at various other sources,   I know more about the details of it than later exercises,   though I do know the U.S. and allied navies did conduct similar exercises several years later (thought still in the 1980s).
> 
> The severely moribund nature of the Russian military in the 1990s made it utterly pointless to conduct such exercises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL most nonsense from 1981 is so remotely useless that is has also been declassified already.  At any rate satellite and missile tech increases since then make 1981 as relevant as the stone age
Click to expand...




> Except the Russians are far, far less active in launching satellites now than the Soviets were in 1981.    Numbers count.


Right now the Russians (to monitor carriers and other large ships) have two sattelites with passive sensors "Lotos-S", and two sattelites with active radars - "Pion-NKS" - system "Liana".
It allow them to locate the carriers every six hours.


----------



## esalla

Silver Cat said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been done before.    Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet  traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 was 40 years ago.  Why do you keep quoting the long distant past as if it is the present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you were going to ask that.
> 
> I bring up the 1981 exercise because due to it being detailed in a book about the U.S. Navy and at various other sources,   I know more about the details of it than later exercises,   though I do know the U.S. and allied navies did conduct similar exercises several years later (thought still in the 1980s).
> 
> The severely moribund nature of the Russian military in the 1990s made it utterly pointless to conduct such exercises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL most nonsense from 1981 is so remotely useless that is has also been declassified already.  At any rate satellite and missile tech increases since then make 1981 as relevant as the stone age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Russians are far, far less active in launching satellites now than the Soviets were in 1981.    Numbers count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now the Russians (to monitor carriers and other large ships) have two sattelites with passive sensors "Lotos-S", and two sattelites with active radars - "Pion-NKS" - system "Liana".
> It allow them to locate the carriers every six hours.
Click to expand...

Again while you are watching Russia China will roto root your ass









						Number of satellites in space in 2022 | Statista
					

How many satellites are in space? As of January 2022, more than 4,850 satellites were orbiting the Earth, of which 61 percent belonged to the US.




					www.statista.com
				




*Satellite quick facts*
Includes launches through 7/31/2020


*Total number of operating satellites: 2,787*
United States: 1,425
Russia: 172
China: 382
Other: 808


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
Click to expand...


The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles. 

You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway.    Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Again while you are watching Russia China will roto root your ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number of satellites in space in 2022 | Statista
> 
> 
> How many satellites are in space? As of January 2022, more than 4,850 satellites were orbiting the Earth, of which 61 percent belonged to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.statista.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Satellite quick facts*
> Includes launches through 7/31/2020
> 
> 
> *Total number of operating satellites: 2,787*
> United States: 1,425
> Russia: 172
> China: 382
> Other: 808



So you are admitting you were lying up thread when you claimed that Russia and China had "10,000 satellites".

Nice of you to admit you're nothing but a troll and a liar.


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
Click to expand...

China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.
> 
> You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway.    Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
Click to expand...

LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?









						Russia's 'Extremely Aggressive' Flyby Alarms Experts
					

A low pass by two Russian jets over a U.S. destroyer was one of the most dangerous examples of brinkmanship by Moscow in a worrying trend.




					www.nbcnews.com
				












						Pentagon: Russian fighter jet repeatedly flew over US destroyer in Black Sea
					

The Pentagon said a Russian fighter jet made multiple close-range passes near an American navy destroyer. The warship was deployed in the Black Sea as Russian military suspects NATO’s systematic build-up of naval forces in the region.




					www.rt.com
				




With no radar lock









						'Here comes this Russian hot dog': The story behind a Navy warship's dangerous encounter with Russian fighter jets
					

A hair-raising encounter between a US warship and Russian aircraft in April 2016 was among the "most aggressive" Russian acts in some time.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
Click to expand...

where have you been? on the moon playing *Missile Command!*!!????








						Phalanx System
					

The Phalanx® weapon system is a rapid-fire, computer-controlled, radar-guided gun that can defeat anti-ship missiles and other close-in threats on land and at sea.




					www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> BTW. The 5M aero ballistic missile DF-17 with DF-ZF glider was first time spotted with H-6N.
> It's 5M range is near 2500 clicks, they say. Some analysts suspect that the DZ-ZF will first be used in shorter-range roles as an anti-ship missile.
> View attachment 413249


You might notice that the launch platform is a copy of a Badger which has been obsolete since the eighties and China only has about 120 of them which can only carry ONE missile apiece.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
Click to expand...

This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where have you been? on the moon playing *Missile Command!*!!????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phalanx System
> 
> 
> The Phalanx® weapon system is a rapid-fire, computer-controlled, radar-guided gun that can defeat anti-ship missiles and other close-in threats on land and at sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com
Click to expand...

No I bought birdseed for my wife's wild pets


----------



## AZrailwhale

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
Click to expand...

Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.


----------



## esalla

AZrailwhale said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
Click to expand...

But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.



Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.
> 
> You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway.    Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia's 'Extremely Aggressive' Flyby Alarms Experts
> 
> 
> A low pass by two Russian jets over a U.S. destroyer was one of the most dangerous examples of brinkmanship by Moscow in a worrying trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon: Russian fighter jet repeatedly flew over US destroyer in Black Sea
> 
> 
> The Pentagon said a Russian fighter jet made multiple close-range passes near an American navy destroyer. The warship was deployed in the Black Sea as Russian military suspects NATO’s systematic build-up of naval forces in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rt.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With no radar lock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Here comes this Russian hot dog': The story behind a Navy warship's dangerous encounter with Russian fighter jets
> 
> 
> A hair-raising encounter between a US warship and Russian aircraft in April 2016 was among the "most aggressive" Russian acts in some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...


overflying a U.S. ship in peacetime is no indicator whatsoever of combat performance in war time.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
Click to expand...

You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.

You are comically stupid.

Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.
> 
> You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway.    Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia's 'Extremely Aggressive' Flyby Alarms Experts
> 
> 
> A low pass by two Russian jets over a U.S. destroyer was one of the most dangerous examples of brinkmanship by Moscow in a worrying trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon: Russian fighter jet repeatedly flew over US destroyer in Black Sea
> 
> 
> The Pentagon said a Russian fighter jet made multiple close-range passes near an American navy destroyer. The warship was deployed in the Black Sea as Russian military suspects NATO’s systematic build-up of naval forces in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rt.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With no radar lock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Here comes this Russian hot dog': The story behind a Navy warship's dangerous encounter with Russian fighter jets
> 
> 
> A hair-raising encounter between a US warship and Russian aircraft in April 2016 was among the "most aggressive" Russian acts in some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> overflying a U.S. ship in peacetime is no indicator whatsoever of combat performance in war time.
Click to expand...

The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down.  That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate.  The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
Click to expand...

so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
Click to expand...


You're an asshole.    Lying repeatedly about what I've said.


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
Click to expand...

We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.
> 
> You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway.    Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia's 'Extremely Aggressive' Flyby Alarms Experts
> 
> 
> A low pass by two Russian jets over a U.S. destroyer was one of the most dangerous examples of brinkmanship by Moscow in a worrying trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon: Russian fighter jet repeatedly flew over US destroyer in Black Sea
> 
> 
> The Pentagon said a Russian fighter jet made multiple close-range passes near an American navy destroyer. The warship was deployed in the Black Sea as Russian military suspects NATO’s systematic build-up of naval forces in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rt.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With no radar lock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Here comes this Russian hot dog': The story behind a Navy warship's dangerous encounter with Russian fighter jets
> 
> 
> A hair-raising encounter between a US warship and Russian aircraft in April 2016 was among the "most aggressive" Russian acts in some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> overflying a U.S. ship in peacetime is no indicator whatsoever of combat performance in war time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down.  That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate.  The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook
Click to expand...


Again.    Peacetime.      The U.S.S. Donald Cook couldn't have fired on the Russian  aircraft no matter what.


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> You are comically stupid.
> 
> Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
Click to expand...




esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
Click to expand...

the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole.    Lying repeatedly about what I've said.
Click to expand...

You said that only a nuke can take out a carrier, you said this and you are clueless as this is just not true anywhere anytime.  That said if an enemy is going to aim at a carrier they might as well nuke it


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're an URDHA.
> 
> Want a non Star Trek reference that you might can understand?    No problem.
> 
> Detecting something like a carrier from satellites is like if you are in the press box at an NFL game with 80,000 fans.    You are handed a state of the art pair of binoculars and a good picture of a man nearly seven feet tall,   roughly 300 lbs.,  and wearing a bright orange coat.    It short he is distinctive and obvious as hell.
> 
> You are given the section,  row number, and seat number where he is sitting and told to find him.    Could you find him?   Sure, probably in a few seconds.
> 
> But,  real life satellite surveillance is NOT like that.   Instead you're given only the section number where the man is.    A section has around 10,000 people total.   And the man you're trying to find also knows you are trying to find him and he is free to move as necessary to evade detection within that section (area of the  ocean).   Plus the man you're trying to find knows the general pattern of how you'll be searching for him (because satellite paths are predictable).    Finally the man in question has control over more than two dozen other people  in that section whom he can move at will to help him avoid detection (the other ships in a carrier battle group along with nearby merchant shipping).
> 
> How quickly do you think you'll find the man in that section then?    Sure,  you might get lucky and find him quickly.    More than likely you won't find him at all.   Even if there are a bunch of you with binoculars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess!  You never served in the military and are talking out of your ass?  The stuff you are posting about satellites finding a carrier in the ocean would have been true in the 60s and 70s, but no longer. Infrared cameras, electronic surveillance, and other capabilities you cannot even fathom make it very easy to locate any ship on the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't use electronic surveillance if there is nothing to surveil.    I assume you've heard of "emissions control".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude they can scan an entire ocean every day more than once, and the satellites are not tracking emissions.
> 
> Are you from Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem with satellites is that the most of them are not going to survive first day of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I am saying is that a carrier is useless as a first strike weapon because if it starts the war and attacks a modern enemy not using camels, such as China there will be no ship to land back on which makes the carrier useless as a first strike weapon, so why have them?  Not all attacks will end in war, but any attack on China or Russia with a carrier will cause the loss of that carrier.  So why have them, or are we going to take the fucking Sahara again bothering the locust eaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can be useful in the second and further strikes, and, what is even more important - they are important in the protection of our ocean trade routes (for example with Australia) from attacks of Russian and Chinese cruisers and submarines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a war there is just no way to defend the ship from missile attack.  We demonstrate that our weapons can shoot down a missile that they know is coming.  Have they ever shot down a Pearl Harbor level attack where every zero was a missile?
> 
> Nope and they never will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AEGIS system using Standard SAMs have proven to be quite good at shooting down missiles.
> 
> You don't have to shoot down every missile anyway.    Unless they have nuclear warheads which means an entirely different type of conflict is underway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL the USS Donald Cook has AEGIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia's 'Extremely Aggressive' Flyby Alarms Experts
> 
> 
> A low pass by two Russian jets over a U.S. destroyer was one of the most dangerous examples of brinkmanship by Moscow in a worrying trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon: Russian fighter jet repeatedly flew over US destroyer in Black Sea
> 
> 
> The Pentagon said a Russian fighter jet made multiple close-range passes near an American navy destroyer. The warship was deployed in the Black Sea as Russian military suspects NATO’s systematic build-up of naval forces in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rt.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With no radar lock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Here comes this Russian hot dog': The story behind a Navy warship's dangerous encounter with Russian fighter jets
> 
> 
> A hair-raising encounter between a US warship and Russian aircraft in April 2016 was among the "most aggressive" Russian acts in some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> overflying a U.S. ship in peacetime is no indicator whatsoever of combat performance in war time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down.  That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate.  The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.    Peacetime.      The U.S.S. Donald Cook couldn't have fired on the Russian  aircraft no matter what.
Click to expand...

Ah yea they could.  Lets just leave it at that 

However without a functioning radar system that was just shut down meaning hand operated 50 cal's to do the job.  Shit it's over long before one gets loaded


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> You are comically stupid.
> 
> Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
Click to expand...

We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole.    Lying repeatedly about what I've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that only a nuke can take out a carrier, you said this and you are clueless as this is just not true anywhere anytime.  That said if an enemy is going to aim at a carrier they might as well nuke it
Click to expand...


Explosions aboard U.S. carriers  in the past have repeatedly shown their ability to endure and continue operating even if hit by the equivalent of up to half a dozen antiship missiles.


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> The Donald Cook didn't even know where it was because it's radar and electronics were shut down.  That means no computer operated guns and missiles that all need data to operate.  The jet got within 30 feet of the Cook



Again.    Peacetime.      The U.S.S. Donald Cook couldn't have fired on the Russian  aircraft no matter what.
[/QUOTE]
Ah yea they could.  Lets just leave it at that

[/QUOTE]

U.S. ships often fire on Russian aircraft in peacetime?   That's news to everyone here.

Pretty interesting fact from a 12 year old.


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> You are comically stupid.
> 
> Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan
Click to expand...

the Phalanx will take out those missiles


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole.    Lying repeatedly about what I've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that only a nuke can take out a carrier, you said this and you are clueless as this is just not true anywhere anytime.  That said if an enemy is going to aim at a carrier they might as well nuke it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explosions aboard U.S. carriers  in the past have repeatedly shown their ability to endure and continue operating even if hit by the equivalent of up to half a dozen antiship missiles.
Click to expand...

You are so shitfaced stupid that it's comical.  Your claim is that the weapons that the Nips used in WW2 that could easily sink carriers could do so, but todays weapons that start at 50,000 times to what several million times more powerful can't do it

Take your medication

Now please


----------



## esalla

Everyone here is not everyone apparently.


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> You are comically stupid.
> 
> Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Phalanx will take out those missiles
Click to expand...


Actually IIRC,   Rolling Airframe MIssiles (RAM) have largely replaced the Phalanx CIWS.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the idiot who thinks a supercarrier has a 4 feet thick hull.
> 
> You are comically stupid.
> 
> Again no supercarrier attacks China and is there for the attacking jets to land on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> the carrier is a fucking bullseye visible from space 24 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure.    from those 10,000 Chinese and Russian satellites you claim are orbiting the Earth.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a FUGE ocean out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> esalla makes what I've heard called "the Star Trek mistake".    esalla thinks that something like a satellite orbiting the Earth can simply be told to "scan for aircraft carriers" or something to that effect and almost instantly be able to detect any reasonably sized object on the Earth's surface.
> 
> In reality,  while a satellite technically "can" detect almost any object on the surface of the Earth...*.it has to no where to look first*.    No satellite or combination of satellites ever built can sweep hundreds of thousands of square miles nearly instantly and get results.     Looking for an object on the surface of the Earth is difficult enough when it is in a fixed location.    It gets even more difficult when the object is moving.   And a carrier will typically move at least in a 600 mile radius every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good analogy ..on _Star Trek_, they could find specific humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, it took the Enterprise hours and days to scan the entire planet with their sooper dooper scanners.  Trying to find a Carrier in the middle of the Pacific is difficult enough if you know where it was but to find it when it puts on the power at 35kts or more and doesn't go in a straight line is almost impossible.  It's a really, really big ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They never actually have to look for the carrier now because it is always visible from the moment it leaves the base and before.
> 
> Why are you clowns babbling about Star Trek
> 
> Jesus you are all infants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The F-35 was once the Pentagon’s high-profile problem child. Has it finally moved past its reputation of being an overhyped and underperforming warplane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahha ''all infants'''   hahahahhahah
> ....we were mistaken..we thought you played only _Missile Command_...now we know you play _Star Trek_
> hahahahahah
> you are the one playing games in your parents' basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [2011.03005] Pathways for entanglement based quantum communication in the face of high noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arxiv.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you have any comments on the made in japan F-35 Lightning
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Flown by Hirohito Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THOUSANDS of missiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahhahahahahahahh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly China alone has thousands of missiles of various sizes, many in an attack would be dummies anyway clearing the way for the real warheads.  You do understand the concept right?
> 
> No real need to even sink a carrier as just poking a hole in one will force retreat to which no other carrier would dare replace
> 
> No comment on made in Japan F35's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a 100,000 ton ship is  barely going to even notice a hole poked in its hull.   Much less be forced to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you think that Chinese DF-21 won't make a big enough hole to sink the carrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL no chance that a 250 or 500 kt nuke warhead would poke a big enough hole to sink a carrier
> 
> OKEEDOKEE
> 
> Should we have all F35's built in Japan now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The second China uses a nuke on a American warship, the USA launches hundreds of ICBMs carrying multiple warheads.  Less than thirty minutes later China ceases to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong because the reason to use the anti ship missile is because the carrier attacked China.  That said since the carrier is no longer a first strike weapon that can survive, it no longer has a purpose.
> 
> Unless the USA attacks camels again.
> 
> I assume that you also know that China launches their nukes against America and America no longer exist as well, Then Russia takes over both
> 
> Great plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China has a comparable handful of nukes. somewhere between 300 and 320 warheads and far fewer missiles and launchers.  The USA has between 5800 and 6200 warheads and probably a hundred times as many launchers.  Most of China's launch platforms can't reach the USA, all of the USA's launch
> platforms can reach China.  The carriers aren't needed to attack China, that's what the air-launched cruise missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles are for.  Carriers will be used against the "islands" that China created out of sandbars and to protect the SLOCs from PLAN attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This discussion is about anti ship missiles and literally the poorest range missiles that China has is in range of every carrier as carriers need to get within a few hundred miles of land to give their jets time in the air over the target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the carriers never need to come into range of land-based missiles until the air and submarine launched missiles have killed off most of the launchers.  Even then it wouldn't be ONE carrier; it would be a task force of three or four with heavy escorts plus not only Hawkeyes, but Sentinels flying in advance of the carriers augmenting the satellite observation.  The Chinese missiles would never go feet dry before being destroyed.  China doesn't have a thousand mobile launchers, it probably has less than a hundred,  Your wave of a thousand missiles is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But in that scenario the carrier is not a first strike weapon.  Also as I posted many if not most land based missiles are mobile and could be anywhere so they can not just be offed.  And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.  Not sure if subs ever do anything anyway as they just wait for round 2 or 3 which has never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I guess the American tax payers are fked, huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Dems/Biden/Harris will fk up the US before we go to war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are at war actually, do not assume it will happen according to any set plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Phalanx will take out those missiles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually IIRC,   Rolling Airframe MIssiles (RAM) have largely replaced the Phalanx CIWS.
Click to expand...

Might well be but a gun is just superior in certain situations


----------



## Dayton3

esalla said:


> Might well be but a gun is just superior in certain situations



I don't disagree.    But IIRC the Phalanx CIWS was always maligned for not being able to throw a sufficient weight of  projectiles to stop an incoming missile that has gone ballistic from continuing on even after being disabled and crashing into the targeted vessel.

The British Goalkeeper which uses the same gun the U.S. A-10 uses is reportedly much better in that regard but it can't be simply "bolted on" like the Phalanx can.

On the other hand,  the Phalanx has reportedly done a great job intercepting small rockets and missiles fired at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad.


----------



## esalla

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might well be but a gun is just superior in certain situations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.    But IIRC the Phalanx CIWS was always maligned for not being able to throw a sufficient weight of  projectiles to stop an incoming missile that has gone ballistic from continuing on even after being disabled and crashing into the targeted vessel.
> 
> The British Goalkeeper which uses the same gun the U.S. A-10 uses is reportedly much better in that regard but it can't be simply "bolted on" like the Phalanx can.
> 
> On the other hand,  the Phalanx has reportedly done a great job intercepting small rockets and missiles fired at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad.
Click to expand...

Baghdad was baby shit 50 or more year old shells blowing up hummers and troops as IED's.  We accomplished nothing there


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Dayton3 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
Click to expand...


And if all 10 things went right to get it to the carrier.  Let one thing go wrong and it goes terminal.  The chances of it working is not even worth calculating.


----------



## the other mike

esalla said:


> We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world


What we need is flexible towers.


----------



## esalla

Angelo said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are all fucked if we rely on obsolete ships in the modern world
> 
> 
> 
> What we need is flexible towers.
> View attachment 413452
Click to expand...

Nah more Mohammad cartoons would do just fine


----------



## esalla

Daryl Hunt said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead,  one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if all 10 things went right to get it to the carrier.  Let one thing go wrong and it goes terminal.  The chances of it working is not even worth calculating.
Click to expand...

We will know the answer under 59 minutes after the USA launches an attack with a carrier.  That said the USA will never use an obsolete weapons system in such an attack so the carrier is useless


----------



## Manonthestreet

Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary



The operative word here is, "Outgoing".  Think about that for just a bit.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The operative word here is, "Outgoing".  Think about that for just a bit.
Click to expand...

Doesnt change the facts........think about that


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The operative word here is, "Outgoing".  Think about that for just a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt change the facts........think about that
Click to expand...


You want the best, you pay for the best.





So we should invest in the Eurofighter at over 70K per flying hour.  Or maybe we should start up the production lines on the P-51 at over 3500 an hour to operate.  Maybe we should get rid of everything else and buy Cubs at less than 25 bucks an hour to operate.

Now you use someone that is no longer employed by the Defense Department.  But you can bank on it that he's employed by some other Aerospace Industry.  And his new employer wants their cut.


----------



## Manonthestreet

F-35’s Buggy Software Prompts Pentagon to Call in Universities - Bloomberg


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> F-35’s Buggy Software Prompts Pentagon to Call in Universities - Bloomberg



The F-15, F-16, F-18 are all getting help in their programming.  What's your point here?  That there are bugs?  Hell, my computer and windows are almost 10 years old and it's full of bugs.  Macs aren't any different.  If I leave my computer on, unattended, very quickly, another update will come in from something of the software or OS.  

As for calling in the Universities, the Federal Government backrolls the Universities and don't you think that they should get some of their support back?


----------



## Manonthestreet

The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets



I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.  

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.  

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break.  Get over it.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy


----------



## Likkmee

pfffffffft. Garbage


----------



## Likkmee

I refer to such as African-American engineering


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Click to expand...


Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?


----------



## Manonthestreet

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the Air Force’s “quarterback in the sky,” but it’s also expensive to operate and, to date, still riddled with issues. Now, the Air Force is kicking off a month-long assessment of the branch’s tactical aviation requirements with the intention of potentially fielding an all-new fighter that boasts some of the capabilities found in the F-35 and F-22, but with a significantly smaller price tag.  
The Air Force wants a new fighter to fill in for the F-35 - Sandboxx 
And there you have it. Its a specialty plane like an AWACS that shoots but doesnt want to let anything get to close,  and a fancy drone controller.   and we probably alrdy have too many of em


----------



## Vrenn

Manonthestreet said:


> The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the Air Force’s “quarterback in the sky,” but it’s also expensive to operate and, to date, still riddled with issues. Now, the Air Force is kicking off a month-long assessment of the branch’s tactical aviation requirements with the intention of potentially fielding an all-new fighter that boasts some of the capabilities found in the F-35 and F-22, but with a significantly smaller price tag.
> The Air Force wants a new fighter to fill in for the F-35 - Sandboxx
> And there you have it. Its a specialty plane like an AWACS that shoots but doesnt want to let anything get to close,  and a fancy drone controller.   and we probably alrdy have too many of em



After some thought, USAF IS getting ready to introduce a replacement for both the F-22 and the F-35.  The Cost won't be nearly has high considering that the RandD has already been spent and the parts are available.  And from the sound of things, it's already being tested in the air.  Now that the election is over with, look for an announcement when USAF goes for funding to build it, or at least the first 10 or 12 at first.  

The problem the F-35 always had was it was a compromise between 3 aircraft.  While each of the 3 are better than almost every other fighter in the sky, had they stuck with just one design for each bird, it could have been done much better and cheaper.  The new bird has enough off the shelf parts from the F-35, F-22 and F-15EX to be built right off the shelf.  And to meet the Gen 6 requirements (whatever they may be).  Can you imagine a twin engine fighter using the engines from the F-35 with the upgrades from the F-22 engines for supercruise?  What makes the F-22 able to supercruise is the super slickness of it's airframe.  If they stuck the F-22 engines into the F-15, it could supercruise just as fast.  But the F-35 is more like a flying brick in comparison due to the requirements of having to be also used as the airframe for the F-35B.  Look for the USAF to stop buying the 
F-35A just a soon as the new Gen 6 Fighter comes online and that's going to be sometime in the late 2020s.  

Even if they use only one engine from the F-35A, by building it with a super slick airframe, they can easily get supercruise, excellent stealth, keep the weight down and get a turn and burn all around fighter attack bird.


----------



## Siberian

super lame duck  

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight.. 

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground



Utterly wrong on all counts.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground



It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.  

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.  

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
Click to expand...


It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes... 

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
Click to expand...


People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs. 
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
Click to expand...


The ones not in the know thinks that air wars are fought on a one on one situation.  They aren't.  They are fought squadron or flight to squadron or flight.  Along with AWACS, ground controllers and more.  It's a very complicated arena.  The bird that shoots you down will probably not be the one that has targeted you.  And breaking one target won't mean that another bird doesn't keep you on target allowing the missile the tracking it needs for the kill.  Dog fighting isn't dead but it's very, very rare.  

Yes, the SU-30 could defeat a F-35A in a gun to gun dogfight but once the missiles are introduced, the F-35 is very deadly.  And that includes within visual.  The F-35A has the ability to target and fire on you in about a 180 degree arc with a reasonable rate of kill.  The Pilot just has to see you and then the missile will do a high g turn towards you.  It's one thing for a missile to change direction long distance because of the speed but another when it's just off the rails and going slow.  The winner is the one that sees the other one first and the F-35A has a huge advantage there.  But to bet your life on getting a gun solution is suicide these days.

As for the F-22, the SU-30 is dead no matter what.  Even in a gun to gun.  The SU-30 is roughly equiv to the F-15C and the F-15C has to get very, very lucky even in a gunfight.  In a gun fight, the F-22 maintains a 20 to 1 kill rate against the F-15C.  The best thing that a SU-30 can do at this point is put the burners on and get the hell out of there.  BTW, there is no sin in putting the burners on and living to fight another day.  If a F-15 gets in trouble, he goes up under full afterburner and NOTHING follows him.  He waits until you can't see him, hits the burner and then reappears 10 miles away and the fight is still on.  But doing that against a F-22 is suicide.  The best thing you can do is to take the advice already give, "I think you should go home now".


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ones not in the know thinks that air wars are fought on a one on one situation.  They aren't.  They are fought squadron or flight to squadron or flight.  Along with AWACS, ground controllers and more.  It's a very complicated arena.  The bird that shoots you down will probably not be the one that has targeted you.  And breaking one target won't mean that another bird doesn't keep you on target allowing the missile the tracking it needs for the kill.  Dog fighting isn't dead but it's very, very rare.
> 
> Yes, the SU-30 could defeat a F-35A in a gun to gun dogfight but once the missiles are introduced, the F-35 is very deadly.  And that includes within visual.  The F-35A has the ability to target and fire on you in about a 180 degree arc with a reasonable rate of kill.  The Pilot just has to see you and then the missile will do a high g turn towards you.  It's one thing for a missile to change direction long distance because of the speed but another when it's just off the rails and going slow.  The winner is the one that sees the other one first and the F-35A has a huge advantage there.  But to bet your life on getting a gun solution is suicide these days.
> 
> As for the F-22, the SU-30 is dead no matter what.  Even in a gun to gun.  The SU-30 is roughly equiv to the F-15C and the F-15C has to get very, very lucky even in a gunfight.  In a gun fight, the F-22 maintains a 20 to 1 kill rate against the F-15C.  The best thing that a SU-30 can do at this point is put the burners on and get the hell out of there.  BTW, there is no sin in putting the burners on and living to fight another day.  If a F-15 gets in trouble, he goes up under full afterburner and NOTHING follows him.  He waits until you can't see him, hits the burner and then reappears 10 miles away and the fight is still on.  But doing that against a F-22 is suicide.  The best thing you can do is to take the advice already give, "I think you should go home now".
Click to expand...


it sounds nice, but my objection was against the very certaincy while talking on advantages of one side - when there is not less a certaincy in words of another side 
I suspect reality can be a surprize for both sides...


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
Click to expand...






Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ones not in the know thinks that air wars are fought on a one on one situation.  They aren't.  They are fought squadron or flight to squadron or flight.  Along with AWACS, ground controllers and more.  It's a very complicated arena.  The bird that shoots you down will probably not be the one that has targeted you.  And breaking one target won't mean that another bird doesn't keep you on target allowing the missile the tracking it needs for the kill.  Dog fighting isn't dead but it's very, very rare.
> 
> Yes, the SU-30 could defeat a F-35A in a gun to gun dogfight but once the missiles are introduced, the F-35 is very deadly.  And that includes within visual.  The F-35A has the ability to target and fire on you in about a 180 degree arc with a reasonable rate of kill.  The Pilot just has to see you and then the missile will do a high g turn towards you.  It's one thing for a missile to change direction long distance because of the speed but another when it's just off the rails and going slow.  The winner is the one that sees the other one first and the F-35A has a huge advantage there.  But to bet your life on getting a gun solution is suicide these days.
> 
> As for the F-22, the SU-30 is dead no matter what.  Even in a gun to gun.  The SU-30 is roughly equiv to the F-15C and the F-15C has to get very, very lucky even in a gunfight.  In a gun fight, the F-22 maintains a 20 to 1 kill rate against the F-15C.  The best thing that a SU-30 can do at this point is put the burners on and get the hell out of there.  BTW, there is no sin in putting the burners on and living to fight another day.  If a F-15 gets in trouble, he goes up under full afterburner and NOTHING follows him.  He waits until you can't see him, hits the burner and then reappears 10 miles away and the fight is still on.  But doing that against a F-22 is suicide.  The best thing you can do is to take the advice already give, "I think you should go home now".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it sounds nice, but my objection was against the very certaincy while talking on advantages of one side - when there is not less a certaincy in words of another side
> I suspect reality can be a surprize for both sides...
Click to expand...


The US always plays their capability down a bit and leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  China and Russia seems to leave a lot of questions open as well except some of their "Questions" are either wannabes or misdirection.

For instance, the SU-57.  It's supposed to be the equal to the F-22 but in reality, it lacks the avionics and engines to reach that point.  It turns out, it's probably not even close to a F-35A in capability either.  But the Russians keep telling us that it is.  Not without the upgrades it isn't and it appears those upgrades are not forthcoming in a very near future.  Meanwhile, Russia has the SU-35 and the Mig-35 that ARE finished products and those we would have to contend with.   Now add to the fact that neither Russia nor China spends enough time in training.  While China is spending a lot of money on expanding because they have such a long way to play catchup, Russia is broke.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
Click to expand...


No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.  

Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.


----------



## Siberian

well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefers assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well while developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.

SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.
> 
> SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..



I can relate to that.  I am working on my second million.  I gave up on my first million.  A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen.  Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15.  Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.
> 
> SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can relate to that.  I am working on my second million.  I gave up on my first million.  A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen.  Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15.  Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
Click to expand...

 Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services... 
SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
Click to expand...






No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.


When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.

It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.
> 
> SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can relate to that.  I am working on my second million.  I gave up on my first million.  A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen.  Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15.  Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
> SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
Click to expand...


Yes, but China is decades behind.  Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled.  The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead.  My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.  

As of late last year, no one has been able  to beat the RF noise.  While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world.  The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless.  It's been worked on since the 1960s.  While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.  

Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that.  Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet.  They are still a few years away from that.  And THAT will kill all radar stealth.  

BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it.  But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
Click to expand...


I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.

And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.
> 
> SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can relate to that.  I am working on my second million.  I gave up on my first million.  A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen.  Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15.  Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
> SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but China is decades behind.  Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled.  The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead.  My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.
> 
> As of late last year, no one has been able  to beat the RF noise.  While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world.  The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless.  It's been worked on since the 1960s.  While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.
> 
> Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that.  Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet.  They are still a few years away from that.  And THAT will kill all radar stealth.
> 
> BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it.  But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
Click to expand...

I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing. 

Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.
> 
> SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can relate to that.  I am working on my second million.  I gave up on my first million.  A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen.  Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15.  Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
> SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but China is decades behind.  Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled.  The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead.  My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.
> 
> As of late last year, no one has been able  to beat the RF noise.  While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world.  The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless.  It's been worked on since the 1960s.  While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.
> 
> Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that.  Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet.  They are still a few years away from that.  And THAT will kill all radar stealth.
> 
> BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it.  But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing.
> 
> Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars
Click to expand...


I never heard of ohotone radar.  How about guiding me to a site on that one.  But Quantum is where there are a pair of matching particles.  One is shot out.  If it returns, you get a picture just like normal radar.  But if it's deflected, at the point of deflection the captured particle will detect that.  When enough particles are deflected, a complete signature is painted in a matter of a fraction of a second.  It sounds simple when I type it but it keeps a whole generation of Scientists and Engineers awake at nights.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.
> 
> SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can relate to that.  I am working on my second million.  I gave up on my first million.  A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen.  Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15.  Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
> SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but China is decades behind.  Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled.  The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead.  My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.
> 
> As of late last year, no one has been able  to beat the RF noise.  While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world.  The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless.  It's been worked on since the 1960s.  While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.
> 
> Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that.  Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet.  They are still a few years away from that.  And THAT will kill all radar stealth.
> 
> BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it.  But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing.
> 
> Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of ohotone radar.  How about guiding me to a site on that one.  But Quantum is where there are a pair of matching particles.  One is shot out.  If it returns, you get a picture just like normal radar.  But if it's deflected, at the point of deflection the captured particle will detect that.  When enough particles are deflected, a complete signature is painted in a matter of a fraction of a second.  It sounds simple when I type it but it keeps a whole generation of Scientists and Engineers awake at nights.
Click to expand...


in a Russian sourse I read that in the US photone radar is called quantum, it's the same


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, I am far from being an expert in this, but as I know Russia always prefer assymmetrical answers which save money, developing anti-air defence, for example, which is way better than American one, as well developing weapons it skips certain stages, like now moving directly to 6th unmanned generation of fighters instead of full production of 5th generation fighters.
> 
> SU-57 production, as I heard, was rather a compromise to enable better export perspectives..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can relate to that.  I am working on my second million.  I gave up on my first million.  A 6th gen can't exist without the 5th gen.  Just like the F-22 could not exist without the F-15.  Our 6th gen is a marraige of the F-22, F-35 and newly developed technology like Lazers, swarms, etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia has better internet and mobile phone coverage, price, quality than the US, having not covered all its territory with wired tepephone services...
> SU-57 is a 5th generation plane, with improved engines to be completed soon, while many stealth technologies of F-s are going to get obsolete or not really that effective with development of new technologies like photonic radars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but China is decades behind.  Russia is years behind while the US has working models but are not scaled.  The Astral Program (joint Lockheed and DARPA) is years ahead.  My information on China and Russia is current but my info on DARPA is dated 2017.
> 
> As of late last year, no one has been able  to beat the RF noise.  While it works well in the Lab, it doesn't lend itself to the real world.  The more power you give it the more RF noise you get until it's worthless.  It's been worked on since the 1960s.  While it may or may not find it's way to Fighter and Ground Radar it's being looked at very close for transportation.
> 
> Quantum Radar looks to be much more promising and the US and Canada are the leaders by decades on that.  Right now, it works in the Labs but they haven't transferred it to the real world quite yet.  They are still a few years away from that.  And THAT will kill all radar stealth.
> 
> BTW, the US is the leader in the Photon Radar and the one that makes it work first will also be the first to learn to defeat it.  But Quantum Radar can't be defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I presume ohotone and quantum radars are the same thing.
> 
> Russia is ahead if the US in several fields, including hypersonic weapons so until it is used nobody knows who is the first in quantum radars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of ohotone radar.  How about guiding me to a site on that one.  But Quantum is where there are a pair of matching particles.  One is shot out.  If it returns, you get a picture just like normal radar.  But if it's deflected, at the point of deflection the captured particle will detect that.  When enough particles are deflected, a complete signature is painted in a matter of a fraction of a second.  It sounds simple when I type it but it keeps a whole generation of Scientists and Engineers awake at nights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in a Russian sourse I read that in the US photone radar is called quantum, it's the same
Click to expand...


No, two different concepts.  And it's Phototonic Radar.

*Photonic radar*
*A laser diode is used to generate an optical signal that is modulated by a linearly-chirped low frequency signal. This modulated optical signal is then split, with one part immediately converted to an electronic signal at 4 times the frequency of the original modulating signal. This waveform is then amplified, emitted via a standard antenna, and then received again via another standard antenna. The second half of the modulated optical signal is further modulated by the reflected signal, and then converted to an electronic signal. This electronic signal is sent through a low-pass filter and finally digitized via an analog-to-digital converter. The resulting digital waveform can be processed to recover the delay between the transmitted and reflected signal, and thus the distance to the target. The entire system may be operated in real-time to allow high-speed target acquisition *

It uses a combination of Lasers and Microwaves.  MW is a lower frequency than the normal Radar therefore it is harder to block.  But the Antennae is also larger.  What they are working at is making it where the arrays can fit on a mobile truck, link with others and get thousands of miles of foolproof coverage defeating Stealth.  While both the Photonic Radar and the Quantum Radar are to be broadcast in the Microwave Bandwidth, they operate differently.  The reason that the MW is chosen is that it's a lower frequency and has a longer range at the same power than the Gigawatt used in the modern Radars.  

*Quantum radar*
_*Quantum radar is a speculative remote-sensing technology based on quantum-mechanical effects, such as the uncertainty principle or quantum entanglement. Broadly speaking, a quantum radar can be seen as a device working in the microwave range, which exploits quantum features, from the point of view of the radiation source and/or the output detection, and is able to outperform a classical counterpart. One approach is based on the use of input quantum correlations (in particular, quantum entanglement) combined with a suitable interferometric quantum detection at the receiver (strongly related to the protocol of quantum illumination). Paving the way for a technologically-viable prototype of a quantum radar involves the resolution of a number of experimental challenges as discussed in some review articles,[1][2] the latter of which pointed out "inaccurate reporting" in the media.   Current experimental designs seem to be limited to very short ranges, of the order of one meter,[3][4][5] suggesting that potential applications might instead be for near-distance surveillance or biomedical scanning. *_

What makes the Quantum Radar work is the same reason that the Quantum Computer is on the near horizon.  Having two identical linked particles where one is kept and the other is transmitted to a MW Radio Frequency, broadcast out and returned.  And if it doesn't return, the captured particle will know it and report the deflection in a mini, milli fraction of a second and that is reported to the system.


----------



## Siberian

you may google translate my sourse









						Фотонные радары, радиофотоника и стелс-технологии
					

Мало какое инет-издание не написало о статье китайских СМИ про российский радар и его способность «превратить в мусор американскую технику».



					naukatehnika.com


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
Click to expand...









Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.

You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.

And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
Click to expand...


I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
Click to expand...









Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
Click to expand...


I was under NHRA and a stock class had to be stock down to the Radiator Caps.  But we tightened up some parts and loosened up others by playing with tolerances.  And in Stock and Superstock didn't allow roll cages.  But we did have to have them for Modified Production.  You described somewhere between a Superstocker and a Modified Production.  If you showed up with what you described, you would have been placed in Modified Production and you would be the slowest car in the entire Modified 
Classes including G Modified.  The idea is to win, not just use the hour hand.  We used the Second hand in all the classes.  The idea is to win not clog up the strip.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Click to expand...


Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the 
Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.  

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was under NHRA and a stock class had to be stock down to the Radiator Caps.  But we tightened up some parts and loosened up others by playing with tolerances.  And in Stock and Superstock didn't allow roll cages.  But we did have to have them for Modified Production.  You described somewhere between a Superstocker and a Modified Production.  If you showed up with what you described, you would have been placed in Modified Production and you would be the slowest car in the entire Modified
> Classes including G Modified.  The idea is to win, not just use the hour hand.  We used the Second hand in all the classes.  The idea is to win not clog up the strip.
Click to expand...






ALL CLASSES REQUIRE roll cages.  SCCA racing is what I do.  Going fast in a straight line is boring as hell.  Anyone can do it.  NHRA rules for Street cars are time dependent.  If your *street car* can do a 11.49 you are required to have a 6 Point Roll Bar.  All other classes REQUIRE a roll cage.  I have no idea what shit you are babbling about, but those are NHRA rules from long, long ago.

And, like I said.  My GT40 will blow your doors off kid.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
Click to expand...

You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.  

there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.  

Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.

Hemispherical combustion chambers
Fuel Injection
Supercharger

Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was under NHRA and a stock class had to be stock down to the Radiator Caps.  But we tightened up some parts and loosened up others by playing with tolerances.  And in Stock and Superstock didn't allow roll cages.  But we did have to have them for Modified Production.  You described somewhere between a Superstocker and a Modified Production.  If you showed up with what you described, you would have been placed in Modified Production and you would be the slowest car in the entire Modified
> Classes including G Modified.  The idea is to win, not just use the hour hand.  We used the Second hand in all the classes.  The idea is to win not clog up the strip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL CLASSES REQUIRE roll cages.  SCCA racing is what I do.  Going fast in a straight line is boring as hell.  Anyone can do it.  NHRA rules for Street cars are time dependent.  If your *street car* can do a 11.49 you are required to have a 6 Point Roll Bar.  All other classes REQUIRE a roll cage.  I have no idea what shit you are babbling about, but those are NHRA rules from long, long ago.
> 
> And, like I said.  My GT40 will blow your doors off kid.
Click to expand...


let's see.  My old Grocery Getter has 4 wheel indy supension, enough power to light up those 11 inch tires in the back at almost any speed, Only the latest C-8 Vette can run with it in your road course.  (Okay, I ain't stock and your car isn't stock either).  Where I will give way due to weight, I'll make it up with over twice the HP and brakes.  Okay, there are some Hellcat Parts in there (standard 5.7 easy hopup).  AS for top speed, if I wanted to, I could add the supercharger to it and have a mini Hellcat.  It's just a bolt on.  My motor stock was so detuned that it only put out 345HP.  But I opened up it's breathing, removed 2 of the 4 mufflers and that HP rating goes up 60 HP.  Now, put a decent tune on the motor and it nears the 500 or more HP range.  Chrysler used the detuned motor of the 300 in the forerunner of the Charger/Challenger but the suspension is better on the 2005 Magnum.  And it's over 400 lbs lighter.  

And the engine doesn't use a thing that the pre automotive Hemis didn't already have.  The Hellcat isn't something new, really old, really old.  

Now, if you are so damned superior about racing and military equipment, give me  just one of those 3 early hemis for the Military.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
Click to expand...






Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Click to expand...

Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.  

Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
Click to expand...


There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.  

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
Click to expand...






No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
Click to expand...


I can see that you failed the test.  The requirements were

_*Hemispherical combustion chambers*_
*Fuel Injection*
_*Supercharger*_

There are only a few examples of that.  One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16.  That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line.  It was topped out at over 500 mph.  The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500.  But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H.  The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight.  But the war ended before it could be completed.  It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube.  My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock.  I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower.  As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp.  All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer. 

Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies.  The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed.  Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman? 

There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name.  There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine.  But those were primarily normal aspirated. 

Had enough yet?  There is more but not for in here.  Now, back to the F-35.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you failed the test.  The requirements were
> 
> _*Hemispherical combustion chambers*_
> *Fuel Injection*
> _*Supercharger*_
> 
> There are only a few examples of that.  One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16.  That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line.  It was topped out at over 500 mph.  The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500.  But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H.  The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight.  But the war ended before it could be completed.  It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube.  My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock.  I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower.  As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp.  All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.
> 
> Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies.  The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed.  Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?
> 
> There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name.  There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine.  But those were primarily normal aspirated.
> 
> Had enough yet?  There is more but not for in here.  Now, back to the F-35.
Click to expand...






No, I passed your test.  You have a lot of proposed engines there.  The V-16 that you talk about has one example left.  Thus it is a non entity.  I only deal in PRODUCTION engines.  There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine.  You had your requirements.  I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares.  After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere.  Kind of like your arguments.

Here are some that I work on.  Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you failed the test.  The requirements were
> 
> _*Hemispherical combustion chambers*_
> *Fuel Injection*
> _*Supercharger*_
> 
> There are only a few examples of that.  One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16.  That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line.  It was topped out at over 500 mph.  The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500.  But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H.  The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight.  But the war ended before it could be completed.  It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube.  My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock.  I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower.  As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp.  All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.
> 
> Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies.  The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed.  Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?
> 
> There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name.  There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine.  But those were primarily normal aspirated.
> 
> Had enough yet?  There is more but not for in here.  Now, back to the F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I passed your test.  You have a lot of proposed engines there.  The V-16 that you talk about has one example left.  Thus it is a non entity.  I only deal in PRODUCTION engines.  There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine.  You had your requirements.  I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares.  After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere.  Kind of like your arguments.
> 
> Here are some that I work on.  Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
Click to expand...


You failed.  Get used to it.  Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
Click to expand...


I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter. 
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement. 

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you failed the test.  The requirements were
> 
> _*Hemispherical combustion chambers*_
> *Fuel Injection*
> _*Supercharger*_
> 
> There are only a few examples of that.  One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16.  That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line.  It was topped out at over 500 mph.  The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500.  But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H.  The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight.  But the war ended before it could be completed.  It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube.  My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock.  I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower.  As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp.  All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.
> 
> Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies.  The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed.  Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?
> 
> There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name.  There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine.  But those were primarily normal aspirated.
> 
> Had enough yet?  There is more but not for in here.  Now, back to the F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I passed your test.  You have a lot of proposed engines there.  The V-16 that you talk about has one example left.  Thus it is a non entity.  I only deal in PRODUCTION engines.  There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine.  You had your requirements.  I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares.  After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere.  Kind of like your arguments.
> 
> Here are some that I work on.  Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed.  Get used to it.  Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.
Click to expand...






I passed.  The J5 meets your criteria.  You did a little internet search for your two of a kind aircraft engines, and i STILL know more about them than you do.  Now, post up some pics of your work.  I did.  Now, put up, or shut up.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
Click to expand...


It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you failed the test.  The requirements were
> 
> _*Hemispherical combustion chambers*_
> *Fuel Injection*
> _*Supercharger*_
> 
> There are only a few examples of that.  One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16.  That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line.  It was topped out at over 500 mph.  The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500.  But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H.  The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight.  But the war ended before it could be completed.  It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube.  My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock.  I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower.  As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp.  All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.
> 
> Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies.  The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed.  Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?
> 
> There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name.  There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine.  But those were primarily normal aspirated.
> 
> Had enough yet?  There is more but not for in here.  Now, back to the F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I passed your test.  You have a lot of proposed engines there.  The V-16 that you talk about has one example left.  Thus it is a non entity.  I only deal in PRODUCTION engines.  There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine.  You had your requirements.  I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares.  After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere.  Kind of like your arguments.
> 
> Here are some that I work on.  Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed.  Get used to it.  Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I passed.  The J5 meets your criteria.  You did a little internet search for your two of a kind aircraft engines, and i STILL know more about them than you do.  Now, post up some pics of your work.  I did.  Now, put up, or shut up.
Click to expand...


It's not about you no matter how much you believe it is.  It's about is the F-35 good or not and what's it's future.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
Click to expand...


well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US  
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
Click to expand...


And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.  

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
Click to expand...


again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is 

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is
> 
> and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
Click to expand...


I can see you are living up to your name.  And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine.  That's the problem with a bully.  They will bull and think it's a good thing.  And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong.  Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out.  And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs.  You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.


----------



## Dayton3

In regards to dogfighting it is worth noting during the Vietnam War,  B-52s shot down at least two, possibly three Mig-21s with their tail guns.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> In regards to dogfighting it is worth noting during the Vietnam War,  B-52s shot down at least two, possibly three Mig-21s with their tail guns.



They never did keep good records of bombers shooting down fighters especially during WWII.  Some bomber crews claimed that they shot down more enemy fighters than the friendlies fighters did.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is
> 
> and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are living up to your name.  And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine.  That's the problem with a bully.  They will bull and think it's a good thing.  And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong.  Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out.  And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs.  You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
Click to expand...


lol, preventing genocide is bullying?
what were you doing in Kosovo then?
except of bullying, of course 
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc etc.
get out of there first before lecturing us...

I hope you see what is the problem with the US - you are so much a hypocrite that you don't even understand the scale of it...

unless your Fs can intercept intercontinental missiles with rate of close to 100% - they will hardly impress me...

p. s. and you don't provide Fs to them, the US wants to fight Russia with others' hands but without much money spent


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is
> 
> and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are living up to your name.  And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine.  That's the problem with a bully.  They will bull and think it's a good thing.  And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong.  Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out.  And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs.  You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, preventing genocide is bullying?
> what were you doing in Kosovo then?
> except of bullying, of course
> Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc etc.
> get out of there first before lecturing us...
> 
> I hope you see what is the problem with the US - you are so much a hypocrite that you don't even understand the scale of it...
> 
> unless your Fs can intercept intercontinental missiles with rate of close to 100% - they will hardly impress me...
Click to expand...


I sure am glad the Military is really in charge of the Nukes on both sides.  I remember the first Teleconference that had the Politiburo, Soviet Military Top Generals, US Congress and the US Joint Chiefs on it and it was televised.  Okay, not televised in your country but it was here.  The Civies were shaking HUGE sabers on both sides, making all kinds of threats while both sides of Military was trying to calm the Politicos down.  Just because a President or a Leader decides to press the button doesn't mean it's going to happen.  He'd better have some pretty good intel first and have passed that down the chain.  

There can be NO surprise nuclear missile launches anymore.  The best case, there will be a 72 hour time to get everything ready just to launch a nuke missile.  We have monitors in your country and you have them here.  As for Bombers, it takes time to upload them and launch them.  And the Subs, it takes time for them to get on station.  And the Subs and Bombers won't attack (even on station) until the Nuclear Missiles launch.  That goes for both sides.  The price of actually going through with it is much higher for your country than mine.  And that price for the US is unfathomable.  It ain't a board game, it's ain't a video game.  

And if Ukraine does decide to get serious about pushing Russia out of Ukraine, it will have the support of almost every country in the world.  The US doesn't have to send in combat troops but it would send in support and equipment along with advisors.  BTW, we already have advisors there.  And it would take us just a few days to get that supply and equipment there as well.  The Ukraine isn't asking for us to do their fighting.  They know how to fight.  They are asking for aid, supplies and the equipment needed to get their Country back.  

Now, back to the F-35, you may end up facing them someday if you spend anymore time breaking the balls of the Balkan States.  I imagine that some of them may end up in at least one of those states that have joined NATO.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is
> 
> and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are living up to your name.  And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine.  That's the problem with a bully.  They will bull and think it's a good thing.  And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong.  Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out.  And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs.  You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, preventing genocide is bullying?
> what were you doing in Kosovo then?
> except of bullying, of course
> Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc etc.
> get out of there first before lecturing us...
> 
> I hope you see what is the problem with the US - you are so much a hypocrite that you don't even understand the scale of it...
> 
> unless your Fs can intercept intercontinental missiles with rate of close to 100% - they will hardly impress me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure am glad the Military is really in charge of the Nukes on both sides.  I remember the first Teleconference that had the Politiburo, Soviet Military Top Generals, US Congress and the US Joint Chiefs on it and it was televised.  Okay, not televised in your country but it was here.  The Civies were shaking HUGE sabers on both sides, making all kinds of threats while both sides of Military was trying to calm the Politicos down.  Just because a President or a Leader decides to press the button doesn't mean it's going to happen.  He'd better have some pretty good intel first and have passed that down the chain.
> 
> There can be NO surprise nuclear missile launches anymore.  The best case, there will be a 72 hour time to get everything ready just to launch a nuke missile.  We have monitors in your country and you have them here.  As for Bombers, it takes time to upload them and launch them.  And the Subs, it takes time for them to get on station.  And the Subs and Bombers won't attack (even on station) until the Nuclear Missiles launch.  That goes for both sides.  The price of actually going through with it is much higher for your country than mine.  And that price for the US is unfathomable.  It ain't a board game, it's ain't a video game.
> 
> And if Ukraine does decide to get serious about pushing Russia out of Ukraine, it will have the support of almost every country in the world.  The US doesn't have to send in combat troops but it would send in support and equipment along with advisors.  BTW, we already have advisors there.  And it would take us just a few days to get that supply and equipment there as well.  The Ukraine isn't asking for us to do their fighting.  They know how to fight.  They are asking for aid, supplies and the equipment needed to get their Country back.
> 
> Now, back to the F-35, you may end up facing them someday if you spend anymore time breaking the balls of the Balkan States.  I imagine that some of them may end up in at least one of those states that have joined NATO.
Click to expand...


it is good you fear nuclear war, and rightly so, since the best way to it is present conviction of the US that you can win a war with Russia (which you won't), and it makes you initiate military adventures like a Nazi coup in Ukraine, which turns the country into a Nazi concentration camp, whose administration is also extremely and unaffordably hostile to Russia.

Ukraine had a chance to exist, it was via building a friendly, as minimum a neutral state to Russiia. Instead with a Nazi coup you turned it into your weapon against Russia and now are provoking war in Donbass, which can easilly lead to disappearing of Ukraine.

this is how things seem to be going, and nobody is to blame except stupidity and Nazism of Western Ukrainians and American agressiveness

and I am afraid you overestimate desire of Balkan, Baltic or any other European  states to die fighting for your interests...


----------



## Siberian

and if I remember correctly US military during Carribean crisis with USSR were insisting on using nukes, but Kennedy contained them...
too bad he was killed later, for no aparent reason 
I am afraid US military now can play not less a destructive role, thinking that their toys like F-35 can make the day dealing with Russia...


----------



## Siberian

multiple videos of Ukrainian heavy weapons moving to the border with Donbass republics are coming, a week ago Ukrainian government closed 4 opposition TV channels and started mass repressions against Ukrainian opposition - with public approval of the US. 

it is obvious Washington pushes Ukraine to the war with Russia. while hoping for what, that Russia will not respond?


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> and if I remember correctly US military during Carribean crisis with USSR were insisting on using nukes, but Kennedy contained them...
> too bad he was killed later, for no aparent reason
> I am afraid US military now can play not less a destructive role, thinking that their toys like F-35 can make the day dealing with Russia...



That was a completely different time.  The Soviet Union would have been all but wiped out with little damage to the US.  Things change with time.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> multiple videos of Ukrainian heavy weapons moving to the border with Donbass republics are coming, a week ago Ukrainian government closed 4 opposition TV channels and started mass repressions against Ukrainian opposition - with public approval of the US.
> 
> it is obvious Washington pushes Ukraine to the war with Russia. while hoping for what, that Russia will not respond?



Occupy Ukraine and then complain when they kick your butts out.  Now, that makes sense, NOT.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
Click to expand...

Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do. 



> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.


As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario: 
Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole. 
Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s). 
Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s). 

At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs. 
Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?


----------



## Siberian

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
> Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
> Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
> Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).
> 
> At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
> Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
Click to expand...

add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> multiple videos of Ukrainian heavy weapons moving to the border with Donbass republics are coming, a week ago Ukrainian government closed 4 opposition TV channels and started mass repressions against Ukrainian opposition - with public approval of the US.
> 
> it is obvious Washington pushes Ukraine to the war with Russia. while hoping for what, that Russia will not respond?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupy Ukraine and then complain when they kick your butts out.  Now, that makes sense, NOT.
Click to expand...


occupy? it's a wrong word, liberate is more appropriate, Russian troops will be met with flowers in half of Ukrainian territory, and another half is not really needed..


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is
> 
> and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are living up to your name.  And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine.  That's the problem with a bully.  They will bull and think it's a good thing.  And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong.  Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out.  And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs.  You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
Click to expand...

You see, to say Russians "Leave Ukraine"(Donbass and Crimea) is the same thing as say to the USA - "Leave Hawaii, Texas and Alaska".

So, if Kievan Junta (backed by the USA) is going to attack Russian citizens and military forces the Russians will be faced with three fairly serious choices:
1) They may retreat from Donbass and Crimea. (Ok. It's impossible, because they believe that Crimes is a part of the Russian Federation, and also it means the lost of Black Sea fleets, and, highly likely, further direct military attack against Kaliningrad region and Kuril islands, say nothing about two million of Russian citizens living in Crimea);
2. They may fight a limited war. But it means another risks. First of all, Russia can crush Ukraine in any reasonable scenario of the conventional or unconventional war. It will cost them a price, but not much. But if NATO is ready to raise bets - it means a real possibility of uncontrolled escalation and uncontrolled start of the all-out nuclear war;
3. The third possibility might have appeared safer to the Russians. Rather then leave "their" lands or for the limited war to erupt into a general war at a time chosen by the Americans they may decide to hit the USA right away. They can argue that this will guarantee them the all-important first strike, at least if they hurry. 
Most governments when asked to choose between war and peace are likely to choose peace, because it looks safer. These same governments if asked to choose between getting the first or the second strike will very likely choose the first strike. They will do so for the same reason they chose peace in the first choice; it is safer.


----------



## Silver Cat

Siberian said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
> Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
> Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
> Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).
> 
> At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
> Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.
Click to expand...

Yes. But it is not about how many Mig-31 (or F-22) will survive first days of the war, but about what is better - to have long-range AAMs or not to have.


----------



## Siberian

Silver Cat said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
> Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
> Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
> Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).
> 
> At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
> Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. But it is not about how many Mig-31 (or F-22) will survive first days of the war, but about what is better - to have long-range AAMs or not to have.
Click to expand...

as I know Mig-31 is exactly equipped with long range misiles and has powerful radar.


----------



## Siberian

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is
> 
> and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are living up to your name.  And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine.  That's the problem with a bully.  They will bull and think it's a good thing.  And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong.  Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out.  And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs.  You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to say Russians "Leave Ukraine"(Donbass and Crimea) is the same thing as say to the USA - "Leave Hawaii, Texas and Alaska".
> 
> So, if Kievan Junta (backed by the USA) is going to attack Russian citizens and military forces the Russians will be faced with three fairly serious choices:
> 1) They may retreat from Donbass and Crimea. (Ok. It's impossible, because they believe that Crimes is a part of the Russian Federation, and also it means the lost of Black Sea fleets, and, highly likely, further direct military attack against Kaliningrad region and Kuril islands, say nothing about two million of Russian citizens living in Crimea);
> 2. They may fight a limited war. But it means another risks. First of all, Russia can crush Ukraine in any reasonable scenario of the conventional or unconventional war. It will cost them a price, but not much. But if NATO is ready to raise bets - it means a real possibility of uncontrolled escalation and uncontrolled start of the all-out nuclear war;
> 3. The third possibility might have appeared safer to the Russians. Rather then leave "their" lands or for the limited war to erupt into a general war at a time chosen by the Americans they may decide to hit the USA right away. They can argue that this will guarantee them the all-important first strike, at least if they hurry.
> Most governments when asked to choose between war and peace are likely to choose peace, because it looks safer. These same governments if asked to choose between getting the first or the second strike will very likely choose the first strike. They will do so for the same reason they chose peace in the first choice; it is safer.
Click to expand...


if Russia all these 7 years was trying to push Donbass back into Ukraine as an autonomy (which would rebalance power more in favour of Russia-friendly Russian speakers in Ukraine, and this is the reason Kiev rejects this), with Crimea it is absolutely impossible, at all, like for the US to leave not even Alaska but some Illinoise... 

no, first strike does not look either favourable ir acceptable, it is the US who is obsessed with this idea. 
For Russia I'd say there are no other options but your 2nd scenario, if Kiev starts agression against Donbass.


----------



## Silver Cat

Siberian said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
> Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.
> 
> So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war.  We do need to build up Ukraine militarily.  Make them able to run the Russians right out.  Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine.  They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea.  And like they tried in Syria.  With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border.  But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders.  And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand.  There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling.  I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US
> there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.
> 
> And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next.  If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops.  Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.
> 
> A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is.  He's not trained well at all.  His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles.  Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz.  When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks.  The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated.  I'll bet on the motivated  troop every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is
> 
> and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are living up to your name.  And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine.  That's the problem with a bully.  They will bull and think it's a good thing.  And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong.  Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out.  And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs.  You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to say Russians "Leave Ukraine"(Donbass and Crimea) is the same thing as say to the USA - "Leave Hawaii, Texas and Alaska".
> 
> So, if Kievan Junta (backed by the USA) is going to attack Russian citizens and military forces the Russians will be faced with three fairly serious choices:
> 1) They may retreat from Donbass and Crimea. (Ok. It's impossible, because they believe that Crimes is a part of the Russian Federation, and also it means the lost of Black Sea fleets, and, highly likely, further direct military attack against Kaliningrad region and Kuril islands, say nothing about two million of Russian citizens living in Crimea);
> 2. They may fight a limited war. But it means another risks. First of all, Russia can crush Ukraine in any reasonable scenario of the conventional or unconventional war. It will cost them a price, but not much. But if NATO is ready to raise bets - it means a real possibility of uncontrolled escalation and uncontrolled start of the all-out nuclear war;
> 3. The third possibility might have appeared safer to the Russians. Rather then leave "their" lands or for the limited war to erupt into a general war at a time chosen by the Americans they may decide to hit the USA right away. They can argue that this will guarantee them the all-important first strike, at least if they hurry.
> Most governments when asked to choose between war and peace are likely to choose peace, because it looks safer. These same governments if asked to choose between getting the first or the second strike will very likely choose the first strike. They will do so for the same reason they chose peace in the first choice; it is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if Russia all these 7 years was trying to push Donbass back into Ukraine as an autonomy (which would rebalance power more in favour of Russia-friendly Russian speakers in Ukraine, and this is the reason Kiev rejects this), with Crimea it is absolutely impossible, at all, like for the US to leave not even Alaska but some Illinoise...
> 
> no, first strike does not look either favourable ir acceptable, it is the US who is obsessed with this idea.
> For Russia I'd say there are no other options but your 2nd scenario, if Kiev starts agression against Donbass.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you explain us an issue of this article, then?


			http://xn----7sbajajhyox3duj.xn--p1ai/images/docs/vks/16-2020/29-36.pdf
		

------------------
The aviation battle application justification aviation to disrupt an integrated massive air strike in the enemy multi-sphere operation
V.I. STUCHINSKIY, Doctor of Military sciences, Associate Professor
MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)
M.V. KOROLKOV, Candidate of Military sciences, Associate Professor
MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)
The article substantiates the need for complex aviation destruction of critical objects in the
operational depth in order to disrupt the initial stage of an integrated massive air strike planned to be
carried out within the framework of the enemy's «multi-sphere operation». A possible space-time construction of an integrated massive air strike is presented.
Keywords: multi-sphere operation, integrated massive air strike, operational and tactical aviation, reconnaissance-strike system.
---------------------



It can be stated that under the current
conditions, the Russian Federation is able to move from a policy of deterring a potential
enemy with nuclear weapons to a policy of intimidating the infliction of unacceptable
complex destruction with all types of weapons as part of preventive actions in
the face of the threat of local war hanging over the Russian Federation.
-------------------------
May be, there is a sort of misunderstanding here?


----------



## Silver Cat

Siberian said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35.  But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR.  But you are back on the one one one.  And that's not how it's going to go down.  It will still be determined on who sees who first.  And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft.  I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though.  Even the F-22 may have some problems with it.  And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D.  If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged.  But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides.  Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5.  The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost.  Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost.  In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged.  Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better.  But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both.  BTW, Guns were never even considered.  The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
> Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
> Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
> Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).
> 
> At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
> Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. But it is not about how many Mig-31 (or F-22) will survive first days of the war, but about what is better - to have long-range AAMs or not to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as I know Mig-31 is exactly equipped with long range misiles and has powerful radar.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's a special tool for shooting down big bombers. And it is much better than "universal stealth fighters" F-22 or F-35 for this objective.


----------



## Siberian

the link doesn't work

what exactly is to be explained, in a couple of sentences?
if that Russia can use nukes in case of massive destruction inside Russia with conventional weapons - as I know Russian military dictrine stipulates that it will use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened. A sudden preventive  nuclear first strike is not considered, you have to really work hard to piss Russians off in their own territory. And if you start war to exterminate Russia and reach considerable success in it no strike of hers, including nuclear one can be callel preventive 

i. e. in any case it cannot be apllied to situation in Ukraine. Unless US and NATO get involved and shift warfare to Russian territory

p. s. But personally I would welcome extension of use of nuclear weapons to any threats to our territory. 

Let's say if US using some Estonia aifields bombs our cities with 100 bombers for a period of 1 week - there is no way to retaliate with equial damage to American cities but with nuclear weapons. It is fair, don't you think?


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
> Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
> Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
> Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).
> 
> At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
> Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?



As always, you Russian Agents paint the wrong picture.  You want the US Citizen to believe that you are invincible and we are doomed.  But you painted a bad picture.  One right out of a Russian Movie.  Here is why.

There might be 10 F-35As but they aren't there as escorts.  They are there as jammers and data links.  The best you can hope for is to get a sweep on them at less than 20 miles and a lock on them at about 12 miles.  And it's going to be hard to hang onto any locks on anything by your SU-35s.  And your R-77Ms require a lock.  Your R-37M is much more useful and the F-35 defeats them by staying relatively cold since they aren't going to be going very fast (somewhere below the bomber speed, back with the AWACs and Tankers).    While they are carrying Aim120Ds and Aim9X missiles, their primary job will be to screw with your SU-35s and direct missiles into not only the SU-35s but the A-100, and all your Bombers which stand out like a sore thumb.  What's going to be doing the firing?  The up to one hundred Canadian F-18s, US F-22s and F-15C/E/EX.  

After spending 8 years in SAC, I am aware what it takes to bag a buff.  You are going to have to throw a whole lot of hardware before you get through.  And if you believe you are going to be firing at 300 to 400 km, you don't know how radar and lockons work.  And you are going to have to wade through a lot of F22/15/18 fighters to get into range.  And if you are in range of anything by the Navy, the SM-2s are some really nasty things that are even better at taking out a fighter or a bomber than the fighters are (you think the Mig31 and the F14 has strong radar, check out the radar for the SM2).

You just attacked the best equipped and trained Air Force (and Navy) on the Planet and you didn't bring your lunch.  Yes, Ivan, over the Cap, the Americans own the skies.


----------



## Siberian

yes, Silver Cat, you made a mistake being Russian! Captain America will deal with you with his magic shield and we're the best of the best of the best 

I presume the conventional war will be closer to Russian borders, so one should also add S-300, 350 and 400 to the fight ...


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> yes, Silver Cat, you made a mistake being Russian! Captain America will deal with you with his magic shield and we're the best of the best of the best
> 
> I presume the conventional war will be closer to Russian borders, so one should also add S-300, 350 and 400 to the fight ...



There you go again, moving the fight trying to stack the deck.  The fight is probably going to be somewhere in northern Canada or close to True North.  And you forgot about the few hundred heavy and light Nuke loaded bombers coming in from the East and the West with Fighter Escorts.  Primary target for the Fighters will be; F-22/15 other fighters, F-35 your Radar Sites which we already know will be chopped up pretty bad even with high losses of F-35s.  So you stopped the over the top.  So would we in that case but you didn't stop the east west attack which you can't do to the US.  And let's not forget about the second barrage from the Nuclear Launch Subs.

End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.  

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.


----------



## Siberian

Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre. 
unless it's nuclear exchange. 

and why is nuclear exchange impossible? 
or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas. 

you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any 

do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory?  with further full nuclear exchange..


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
> unless it's nuclear exchange.
> 
> and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
> or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.
> 
> you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any
> 
> do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory?  with further full nuclear exchange..



You assume that the US will be the agressor.  To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia.   And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground.  The Baltic Region knows how to fight.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
> unless it's nuclear exchange.
> 
> and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
> or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.
> 
> you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any
> 
> do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory?  with further full nuclear exchange..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the US will be the agressor.  To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia.   And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground.  The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
Click to expand...

Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.

If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight...


----------



## Flash

China directed their "Big Guy" in the Whilte House to curtail production so that is an indication it is a kick ass fighter.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.


You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world. 



> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.


Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works. 
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.


----------



## Silver Cat

Siberian said:


> Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
> unless it's nuclear exchange.


No. We are talking about the third day of the WWIII, and it means that those Buffs, Bears, Flankers and Lightnings are leftovers survived nuclear exchanges of the first two days.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
Click to expand...

Really? How does a radar homing missile lock on to a stealth aircraft at long range?  Not to mention, just how does the Su-35 know where the F-35 is?  One other problem the Su has, it has to radiate to locate the target, then the R37m is a active seeker, which means it’s much weaker radar has to manage to lock


Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
> unless it's nuclear exchange.
> 
> and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
> or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.
> 
> you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any
> 
> do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory?  with further full nuclear exchange..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the US will be the agressor.  To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia.   And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground.  The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.
> 
> If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that any objective person can call what happened during the revolution an invasion.  The actual, legal Russian government INVITED allied forces in to support the White Russian troops against the Communists who were in revolt against the legal government of Russia.  The Communists then went on to invade the Baltics, Poland and other countries killing multiple millions of both Soviet citizens, but innocent Finns, Poles and others.  After the Germans turned on your people, the Communists then invaded and conquered Eastern Europe and killed even ore innocent people,  When the Hungarians tried to throw off the Soviet yoke in 1956 your people slaughtered them both military and civilian.


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? How does a radar homing missile lock on to a stealth aircraft at long range?  Not to mention, just how does the Su-35 know where the F-35 is?  One other problem the Su has, it has to radiate to locate the target, then the R37m is a active seeker, which means it’s much weaker radar has to manage to lock
Click to expand...

It's civilised, "European" duel. So, both duelist get information from their cornermen. Then, R-37 is a missile for big and slow targets, like AWACS, bombers, tankers and so on. They have R-77 (and its modifications) with increased range and improved seeker (INS+radar+IR) for fighters (and "stealth" fighters) too.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Siberian said:


> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground



Exaggerate much?


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> I'm not sure that any objective person can call what happened during the revolution an invasion.  The actual, legal Russian government INVITED allied forces in to support the White Russian troops against the Communists who were in revolt against the legal government of Russia.  The Communists then went on to invade the Baltics, Poland and other countries killing multiple millions of both Soviet citizens, but innocent Finns, Poles and others.  After the Germans turned on your people, the Communists then invaded and conquered Eastern Europe and killed even ore innocent people,  When the Hungarians tried to throw off the Soviet yoke in 1956 your people slaughtered them both military and civilian.


Really? I mean, the US Fake Media often say, that Russia "invaded" Crimea and Donbass after Ukrainian "Revolution of Dignity", "invaded" Baltic states, or as you said, "invaded" Hungary (from the Soviet point of view, the legal Hungarian government of Janos Kadar invited them to keep the order and prevent counter-revolution mutiny). And yes, it was Europe (united by Hitler) who invaded the USSR and supported Japan.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you failed the test.  The requirements were
> 
> _*Hemispherical combustion chambers*_
> *Fuel Injection*
> _*Supercharger*_
> 
> There are only a few examples of that.  One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16.  That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line.  It was topped out at over 500 mph.  The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500.  But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H.  The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight.  But the war ended before it could be completed.  It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube.  My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock.  I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower.  As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp.  All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.
> 
> Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies.  The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed.  Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?
> 
> There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name.  There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine.  But those were primarily normal aspirated.
> 
> Had enough yet?  There is more but not for in here.  Now, back to the F-35.
Click to expand...


You cannot patent a name, dumbass.  It's called a trademark.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Vrenn said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to dogfighting it is worth noting during the Vietnam War,  B-52s shot down at least two, possibly three Mig-21s with their tail guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never did keep good records of bombers shooting down fighters especially during WWII.  Some bomber crews claimed that they shot down more enemy fighters than the friendlies fighters did.
Click to expand...


The word is "friendly's"


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an old motorhead.  When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever.  But I didn't ask so much of it.  It didn't have it to give anyway.  The basic parts were not being overly taxed.
> 
> But when I built a performance engine,  I didn't expect it to last very long.  In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure.  No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.
> 
> The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds.  You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it.  The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag.  But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast.  By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons.  But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem".  If called on, it does the job and gets home safely.  The same won't be said about the other guy.
> 
> I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems.  Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines.  You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate.  The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type  Aircraft.  Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.
> 
> Fighters break.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead on anology.  When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week.  I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild.  When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild.  But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week.  The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day.  Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines.  You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.
> 
> BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines.  Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are a piss poor liar.  No engine can go racing and last that long.  Period.  You can amble along, but racing, forget it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No engine YOU can build will.  But my engines did.  Of course, they also might shake hands with a rod at odd times but that was the exception.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are you driving today?  If it ain't got a Hemi, it's junk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they won't.   Not for a year.  And, if YOU built the engine, it isn't "stock".  It never pays to try and bullshit someone who actually DOES know what are claiming.  I've been involved in racing vintage race cars for years.  Hell,  decades now.  I also crew a Reno Air Race plane.   Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> When I want to go fast, I have an original GT40 MKI.  I'm in the 200mph club.  Have been for decades.
> 
> It ain't a hemi, but even with its little 289 I will blow the doors off of most anything.  And it’s nearly 60 years old now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I built stock engines.  The only thing you could do was to tighten up the tolerances which made it produce a bit more power and last longer.  In SS, you could get a bit more creative, the  power goes up and the need for rebuilds also goes up.  In Modified, the creativity goes way up, the power goes way up and the failure rate goes up exponentially.  And I got into the 200mph club in a Dragster in the late 60s.  My driver was also a Rail Driver and set me up for two passes, one low speed and one full power AFTER I passed the safety checks.  Then I went back to being a MP Crew Chief where I belonged.
> 
> And I can tell you this, there are NO engines made today that have more going for it than the old Recip and Inline Engines from WWII.  There isn't a damn thing made today that didn't steal those blind including your 289 and my Hemi.  And I have time on the R2800, R3350 and the R4360 engines as a Mechanic.  I didn't get to spend time on the Allison and the Merlin since they were both out of service by the time I went into service.  I have 5 years of doing that.  So don't give me your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, we are still racing Merlins.  He'll, there's a Bristol Centaurus still being flown.
> 
> You sound like Daryl.  You pull engine names off of wiki but don't understand what they mean, nor how they work.
> 
> And tighter tolerances do indeed mean more power, but that leads to short lifespans.  And "Stock" means stock.  No mods of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say modifications.  I said tightening up the tolerances.  That tells me that YOU don't race shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tightening tolerances IS modifying.  That tells me you either don't understand the English language, or you are lying.  Stock means the engine, drive train, fuel system, and suspension,  are as built by the manufacturer.  ITC allows you to put a better carb on a engine, and slightly stiffen up the suspension, Show Room Stock allows only safety modifications to be done.  In other words, the mandated roll cage and five point harness.  That's it.  No other modifications may be made.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do like to lose.  And a loose engine is a happy engine but oil pumps, rings and the like  like to be close tolerance.  That's not cheating, that's called winning and having a good Crew Chief.  Now I won't say I never shaved the rules at times.  Before I got embarrassed by a driver who ended up driving my car, I won a meet.  The guy that placed second said, "How are you cheating. I'm cheating and you beat me".  The cheat was the rear bumper.  The bumper used during the Tech inspection was 300 lbs heavier than the stock bumper. Oh, and the fuel mix of Sunnoco 260 and 145 Avgas.  They checked for Lead Content so the Gasoline had to be there plus the valves would have burnt to a crisp without the Lead.  Sucking a valve at over 7000 rpm really ruins the weekend.  You could tear the engine down and all your would find is approved parts.  I got away with that for the entire 1969 season.  Then Greetings from the President and goodbye to a high paying job.
> 
> there was a good reason I ended up on Engines in USAF for the first 5 years, starting out on Recips.    If you believe I don't know about Merlins and Allisons, you would be fooling yourself.  We stole those engines blind for our drag motors.  And all our Drag Motors from stock to top fuel all used ideas that were already in the old Recip and Inlines from ever before WWII.
> 
> Here is a test for you. I'll describe and engine and you match it to the vehicle.
> 
> Hemispherical combustion chambers
> Fuel Injection
> Supercharger
> 
> Now what were the vehicles that that engine was used in?  And don't count the Prats from WWII who were also Hemis.  Yes, this also describes the Hellcats.  But the Hellcat engines go back to.....................   What's the answer.  I'll accept three answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, the Wright J5 that took Lindbergh across the Atlantic meets that critetia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Wright later became the Prat so that exception was already done.  And it wasn't supercharged nor fuel injected.
> 
> Keep looking and keep getting educated in information that most Aero Engine Mechs know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.   Hemi engines date back to the early 1900's.  Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Aston Martin, have all used them at some point.  The J5 is 1920s so the earliest I can remember off the top of my head that met your requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you failed the test.  The requirements were
> 
> _*Hemispherical combustion chambers*_
> *Fuel Injection*
> _*Supercharger*_
> 
> There are only a few examples of that.  One is the XP-47H which was a modified one off of a P-47D using a Chrysler 2160 inverted V-16.  That puppy produced over 2500 HP and gave the P-47 more of a smooth line.  It was topped out at over 500 mph.  The Bearcat wasn't the only WWII bird that could top over 500.  But the Bearcat was late and never saw combat in WWII and the end of the war spelled the end of the XP-47H.  The Chrysler motor put out 2500 HP on takeoff and also 2500 HP at 25,000 feet making it far superior to the Merlin and the Allison by CID or weight.  But the war ended before it could be completed.  It did make a resergence as the various Hemis of Chrysler starting in 1952 where the Hemi was the only car engine normally aspirated that could obtain a better than 1hp per cube.  My engine is a 345 cid and heavily detune but is rated at 345HP stock.  I have never seen an engine that responds as well to minor upgrades in horsepower.  As it sits, with only a retune, change in the air velocity and filter and the removal of 2 of the 4 mufflers, the HP is well over 450 hp.  All simple boltons or just reprograming the computer.
> 
> Another case was the proposed Chrysler V-12 to replace the A47 engine in the various types of Shermans and Fireflies.  The Military was testing it and it was quite successful but the war ended and the tank requirements were changed.  Can you imagine a hotrod version of a Sherman?
> 
> There were also some Boats that got the early Hemis before it was called "The Hemi" and Chrysler patented the name.  There were a lot of engines that started out as Boat engines that became fantastic fighter engines like the Allison V-12 also used as a Derrigable Engine.  But those were primarily normal aspirated.
> 
> Had enough yet?  There is more but not for in here.  Now, back to the F-35.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I passed your test.  You have a lot of proposed engines there.  The V-16 that you talk about has one example left.  Thus it is a non entity.  I only deal in PRODUCTION engines.  There were exactly TWO P-47's that were modified to take the engine.  You had your requirements.  I met them easily, so now you trot out an experimental, that I knew about, but who cares.  After 27,000 hours of development work, it went nowhere.  Kind of like your arguments.
> 
> Here are some that I work on.  Let's see some pictures, that you took, of your work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed.  Get used to it.  Now back to the F-35 in question, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I passed.  The J5 meets your criteria.  You did a little internet search for your two of a kind aircraft engines, and i STILL know more about them than you do.  Now, post up some pics of your work.  I did.  Now, put up, or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about you no matter how much you believe it is.  It's about is the F-35 good or not and what's it's future.
Click to expand...





No, it's not, but you made a claim.  Produce pictures to support your claim or slink off like the good little sock puppet you are.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
> unless it's nuclear exchange.
> 
> and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
> or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.
> 
> you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any
> 
> do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory?  with further full nuclear exchange..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the US will be the agressor.  To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia.   And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground.  The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.
> 
> If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight...
Click to expand...


Back to the F-35. Sleep well that the US isn't going to fire the first shot.  But remember, the first shots have already been fired by Russia and was met with extreme power where the Russians thought they were being attacked by a swarm of angry hornets.  And then the lying and back pedaling of the Russian Government disclaiming the attack.  And it hasn't happened again.  One wonders what would have happened if that attack would have been successful and not been met with such force.  Would Syria have become another Ukraine?


----------



## Siberian

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> super lame duck
> 
> it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..
> 
> in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF.  It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost.  To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself.  That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.
> 
> This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35.  It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly.  But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better.  In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22.  That is the only deficit of the F-35A.  It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only).  And that was (and still is) a tall order.  To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.
> 
> The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B.  USAF has it's own needs.  And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...
> 
> i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People don't realize that
> 
> 1) In fighter combat,  dog fighting is strictly a last resort.   Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
> 2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
> Eagle into a gun fight.  Same goes for the SU series.  The last thing you want to do is play long range missile  toss with the F-15.  But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose.  Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.
> 
> Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them.  They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up.    There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path.  All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR.  Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning.    That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.
> 
> Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters.  But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR.  It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5).  NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game.  You fight your own fight.  And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy?  Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? How does a radar homing missile lock on to a stealth aircraft at long range?  Not to mention, just how does the Su-35 know where the F-35 is?  One other problem the Su has, it has to radiate to locate the target, then the R37m is a active seeker, which means it’s much weaker radar has to manage to lock
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
> unless it's nuclear exchange.
> 
> and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
> or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.
> 
> you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any
> 
> do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory?  with further full nuclear exchange..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume that the US will be the agressor.  To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia.   And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground.  The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.
> 
> If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure that any objective person can call what happened during the revolution an invasion.  The actual, legal Russian government INVITED allied forces in to support the White Russian troops against the Communists who were in revolt against the legal government of Russia.  The Communists then went on to invade the Baltics, Poland and other countries killing multiple millions of both Soviet citizens, but innocent Finns, Poles and others.  After the Germans turned on your people, the Communists then invaded and conquered Eastern Europe and killed even ore innocent people,  When the Hungarians tried to throw off the Soviet yoke in 1956 your people slaughtered them both military and civilian.
Click to expand...


if Tsarist government was legitimate then reverse recognition of independency of Poland, Finland, Baltic states etc. since all them were a part of Russian Empire.

It was not Hungarian people but Hungarian WWII Nazis who were revolting in 1956, the same people fighting Soviets, you should not forget that Hungary was a Nazi country and an ally of Hitler just 11 years prior to revolt. So, Hungary had to be reliberated of Nazis again.

And it was not Bolsheviks, who recognized independence if Finland, but Finland which invaded Soviet Russia trying to annex Karelia region. 1st Soviet-Finnish war was started by Finland.
And USSR did not "invade and conquer" Eastern Europe, but cleanced Eastern European Nazi allies and colonies of Nazism after they killed 29 mln of Russians, and stayed to prevent return of Nazism, which was quite real as Hungarian rebellion demonstrared.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
Click to expand...


I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.  

The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.  

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.  

You think it's cold in Siberian now?  

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northern Canada? are we talking about conventional fight? NATO:Russia forces are 4,5:1 or something, or 6:1, and for sure Russia will not attack but will be in defence, so the fight will not be over the North pole or Canada, most probably in European theatre.
> unless it's nuclear exchange.
> 
> and why is nuclear exchange impossible?
> or, to be correct, if things go bad for Russia in European theatre it may start exterminating one NATO country after another with nuclear weapons. or to start with US bases overseas.
> 
> you can also use nukes afainst our bases abroad, if you find any
> 
> do you want me to believe that you will respond with nuclear weapons against proper Russian territory?  with further full nuclear exchange..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the US will be the agressor.  To date, the biggest aggressor in the Baltic Region has been Russia.   And the US doesn't have to put one single combat boot on the ground.  The Baltic Region knows how to fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia never invaded the US, US did invade Russia.
> 
> If Baltic region knows how to fight then I can sleep tight...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the F-35. Sleep well that the US isn't going to fire the first shot.  But remember, the first shots have already been fired by Russia and was met with extreme power where the Russians thought they were being attacked by a swarm of angry hornets.  And then the lying and back pedaling of the Russian Government disclaiming the attack.  And it hasn't happened again.  One wonders what would have happened if that attack would have been successful and not been met with such force.  Would Syria have become another Ukraine?
Click to expand...


it's clear to everybody that the US is behind drone attacks on Russian troops in Syria, so you should pray yourself not to be attacked too by "unrecognized" drones, which you have no defence against, unlike Russians, which reppell them successfully.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
Click to expand...


as Putin said - we don't need the World if there is no Russia in it. 
it makes ANY war which can cause further disintegration or another USSR-style collapse of Russia equial to nuclear exchange, i. e. don't hope that you can rely on NATO's superiority in conventional weapons, Russia considers not the kind of weapons but kind of result as an excuse to use nukes. 

So, if the US aims defeat of Russia on its territory you should understand that you aim nuclear exchange. 

I presume it's common understsnding in Russia that we are not going to allow any war on our territory any more in future, and nuclear war in 3d countries, in some Ukraine, Poland etc, - why not, if you wish..


----------



## Siberian

And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this






						Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones. 

Every of it will sweep off coasts for tens or hundreds kilometers deep into land territory, then cobalt fallout will make areas as deep as 1000 km uninhabitable for thousandsof years. 
USSR dropped development of this weapon because it was too inhuman, but USA did not refuse to talk then, now it does.


----------



## Siberian

the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities


----------



## Silver Cat

If the Russians (as some of thr


Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
Click to expand...

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?


----------



## Silver Cat

Siberian said:


> the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities


How do they sing?


----------



## Siberian

Silver Cat said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities
> 
> 
> 
> How do they sing?
Click to expand...

is it supposed to mean something? 
I start thinking that Russians (including Ukrainians, which are also Russians) outnumber Americans in this forum


----------



## Siberian

Silver Cat said:


> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
Click to expand...

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner. 
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe. 
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK. 

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones.



Prove it.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
Click to expand...


Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.


----------



## Siberian

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

prove what? read the link I attached.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
Click to expand...


As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
Click to expand...


And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Vrenn, start your calculation of consequences of nuclear exchange with this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is going to have more than 30 of such 100 megaton underwater drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prove what? read the link I attached.
Click to expand...


With a credible source.    The Russians are constantly claiming they are "planning" to deploy something promoted as a superweapon.    Yet they virtually never do.


----------



## Silver Cat

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
Click to expand...

That's what they name "uncontrolled escalation". And "preemptive strike" is, at least, five times better.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
Click to expand...

Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions. 





						Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
					

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации




					www.kremlin.ru
				



---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
Click to expand...

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
Click to expand...


lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks 

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now 
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.  

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
Click to expand...


newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
Click to expand...


No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine 
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR 
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves 

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....


as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...


----------



## Dayton3

The U.S. will destroy Russia eventually.    Destroying most of their conventional military,   eliminating their nuclear arsenal and seizing half their territory,  permanently.    

The U.S. becomes the largest nation on Earth thereafter. 

It's the only way the world will know peace.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
Click to expand...


And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.  

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.  

 Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
Click to expand...

If Poland get involved, it will take only 5 days to finish it's existence, according their own command stuff exercises.









						"The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure
					

The Zima-20 command-staff exercises were held in Poland, but their results were extremely sad for the Polish military. Combat simulation even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS MLRS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish




					en.topcor.ru
				





*"The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure*
February 2 2021

The Zima-20 command-staff exercise was held in Poland, but its results were extremely sad for the Polish military. The simulation of military operations even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland, but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, MLRS HIMARS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish portal Onet, citing a number of media outlets in their country.

According to the Polish Internet edition Interia, several thousand officers took part in the exercise. During the simulation, literally everything was taken into account. Even a reformed system of military command and control was used. But the exercises ended not only in complete failure, but in a gigantic disaster. The Polish Armed Forces were defeated in a very short time and ceased to exist.

The war is lost in 5 days

- stated in Interia.

The portal clarified that the fierce defense on the eastern front led to the defeat of military units and huge losses among the military personnel. On the fifth day the enemy reached the Vistula line, but Poland no longer had an army to defend it.

The battles for Warsaw were still going on, but the ports were already either blocked or captured by the enemy. The aviation and navy no longer existed as a branch of the armed forces. The ground forces lost 60-80 percent of their personnel. The exercise caused real confusion in the ranks of the military.

In turn, the Polish tabloid Super Express provided additional information, referring to its informants. Initially, the Polish Armed Forces planned to hold the defense for 22 days before the arrival of reinforcements in the form of forces of NATO allies. However, on the fourth day Warsaw was surrounded, and the enemy was advancing westward. Everything went completely wrong as planned by the Polish military leaders. Moreover, the commanders of some units were shocked by the assigned tasks and refused to complete them.

The head of state Andrzej Duda and the head of the military department Mariusz Blaszak were familiarized with the results of the exercises. At the same time, the office of the President of Poland and the Ministry of National Defense refused to comment on the above information, citing secrecy, the Polish media summed up.


----------



## Dayton3

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Poland get involved, it will take only 5 days to finish it's existence, according their own command stuff exercises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure
> 
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercises were held in Poland, but their results were extremely sad for the Polish military. Combat simulation even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS MLRS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.topcor.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure*
> February 2 2021
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercise was held in Poland, but its results were extremely sad for the Polish military. The simulation of military operations even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland, but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, MLRS HIMARS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish portal Onet, citing a number of media outlets in their country.
> 
> According to the Polish Internet edition Interia, several thousand officers took part in the exercise. During the simulation, literally everything was taken into account. Even a reformed system of military command and control was used. But the exercises ended not only in complete failure, but in a gigantic disaster. The Polish Armed Forces were defeated in a very short time and ceased to exist.
> 
> The war is lost in 5 days
> 
> - stated in Interia.
> 
> The portal clarified that the fierce defense on the eastern front led to the defeat of military units and huge losses among the military personnel. On the fifth day the enemy reached the Vistula line, but Poland no longer had an army to defend it.
> 
> The battles for Warsaw were still going on, but the ports were already either blocked or captured by the enemy. The aviation and navy no longer existed as a branch of the armed forces. The ground forces lost 60-80 percent of their personnel. The exercise caused real confusion in the ranks of the military.
> 
> In turn, the Polish tabloid Super Express provided additional information, referring to its informants. Initially, the Polish Armed Forces planned to hold the defense for 22 days before the arrival of reinforcements in the form of forces of NATO allies. However, on the fourth day Warsaw was surrounded, and the enemy was advancing westward. Everything went completely wrong as planned by the Polish military leaders. Moreover, the commanders of some units were shocked by the assigned tasks and refused to complete them.
> 
> The head of state Andrzej Duda and the head of the military department Mariusz Blaszak were familiarized with the results of the exercises. At the same time, the office of the President of Poland and the Ministry of National Defense refused to comment on the above information, citing secrecy, the Polish media summed up.
Click to expand...


You miss the obvious. 

What if substantial NATO forces are already in Poland when the war begins?


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
Click to expand...

First. Ukraine don't have any AWACS - neither A-50, nor A-100. The most close thing they have is An-30. 
---------------








						Antonov An-30 - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The *Antonov An-30* (NATO reporting name: *Clank*), is a development of the An-24 designed for aerial cartography.
------------

Second. Neither Ukraine, nor Ukraine-Polish-Baltic-Balcan alliance (in a local war), nor the whole hypothetical EU Army (in a regional war) are able to defeat Russia. Only the USA (in large-scale war) have a chance to do it. 
Third. To defeat Russia, or be able to use Detterence Type II (against extremal Russian provication), the USA need to have the Credible First Strike Capability. It is not only about possibility to harm them. It is more about possibility to face Russian retaliation strike. And, to be able to face Russian retaliation strike and to prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers (and therefore - postattack blackmail) - the USA need many relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range AAMs (better - with both nuclear and conventional warheads) and it is obviously not F-35.


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Poland get involved, it will take only 5 days to finish it's existence, according their own command stuff exercises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure
> 
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercises were held in Poland, but their results were extremely sad for the Polish military. Combat simulation even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS MLRS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.topcor.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure*
> February 2 2021
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercise was held in Poland, but its results were extremely sad for the Polish military. The simulation of military operations even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland, but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, MLRS HIMARS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish portal Onet, citing a number of media outlets in their country.
> 
> According to the Polish Internet edition Interia, several thousand officers took part in the exercise. During the simulation, literally everything was taken into account. Even a reformed system of military command and control was used. But the exercises ended not only in complete failure, but in a gigantic disaster. The Polish Armed Forces were defeated in a very short time and ceased to exist.
> 
> The war is lost in 5 days
> 
> - stated in Interia.
> 
> The portal clarified that the fierce defense on the eastern front led to the defeat of military units and huge losses among the military personnel. On the fifth day the enemy reached the Vistula line, but Poland no longer had an army to defend it.
> 
> The battles for Warsaw were still going on, but the ports were already either blocked or captured by the enemy. The aviation and navy no longer existed as a branch of the armed forces. The ground forces lost 60-80 percent of their personnel. The exercise caused real confusion in the ranks of the military.
> 
> In turn, the Polish tabloid Super Express provided additional information, referring to its informants. Initially, the Polish Armed Forces planned to hold the defense for 22 days before the arrival of reinforcements in the form of forces of NATO allies. However, on the fourth day Warsaw was surrounded, and the enemy was advancing westward. Everything went completely wrong as planned by the Polish military leaders. Moreover, the commanders of some units were shocked by the assigned tasks and refused to complete them.
> 
> The head of state Andrzej Duda and the head of the military department Mariusz Blaszak were familiarized with the results of the exercises. At the same time, the office of the President of Poland and the Ministry of National Defense refused to comment on the above information, citing secrecy, the Polish media summed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the obvious.
> 
> What if substantial NATO forces are already in Poland when the war begins?
Click to expand...

They will be crushed too, then. Russia has three Tank Armies at the Ukrainian border plus two (maybe three) Tank Corps in the DPR and LPR.
Actually, it is more, than the whole Europe has or able to send in the Poland. Also it means that it is a "regional war" from its very beginning and Russia is going to use nukes (at least tactical).
If there are American forces, and Russia is sure, that the USA are determined to use it - it is a "large-scale war" from its very beginning, and Russia has only one choice - between "uncontrolled escalation" (or, may be, "escalation for de-escalation", if they believe that the USA may retreat after a really serious demonstration of power and decisiveness) or "preemptive strike" (in which American retaliation strike will be significantly weakened or may be even prevented by "postattack blackmail").


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Poland get involved, it will take only 5 days to finish it's existence, according their own command stuff exercises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure
> 
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercises were held in Poland, but their results were extremely sad for the Polish military. Combat simulation even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS MLRS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.topcor.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure*
> February 2 2021
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercise was held in Poland, but its results were extremely sad for the Polish military. The simulation of military operations even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland, but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, MLRS HIMARS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish portal Onet, citing a number of media outlets in their country.
> 
> According to the Polish Internet edition Interia, several thousand officers took part in the exercise. During the simulation, literally everything was taken into account. Even a reformed system of military command and control was used. But the exercises ended not only in complete failure, but in a gigantic disaster. The Polish Armed Forces were defeated in a very short time and ceased to exist.
> 
> The war is lost in 5 days
> 
> - stated in Interia.
> 
> The portal clarified that the fierce defense on the eastern front led to the defeat of military units and huge losses among the military personnel. On the fifth day the enemy reached the Vistula line, but Poland no longer had an army to defend it.
> 
> The battles for Warsaw were still going on, but the ports were already either blocked or captured by the enemy. The aviation and navy no longer existed as a branch of the armed forces. The ground forces lost 60-80 percent of their personnel. The exercise caused real confusion in the ranks of the military.
> 
> In turn, the Polish tabloid Super Express provided additional information, referring to its informants. Initially, the Polish Armed Forces planned to hold the defense for 22 days before the arrival of reinforcements in the form of forces of NATO allies. However, on the fourth day Warsaw was surrounded, and the enemy was advancing westward. Everything went completely wrong as planned by the Polish military leaders. Moreover, the commanders of some units were shocked by the assigned tasks and refused to complete them.
> 
> The head of state Andrzej Duda and the head of the military department Mariusz Blaszak were familiarized with the results of the exercises. At the same time, the office of the President of Poland and the Ministry of National Defense refused to comment on the above information, citing secrecy, the Polish media summed up.
Click to expand...


And that was in 1939.  Poland isn't the weak duckling it once was.  And if Poland goes, so does the other Baltic States.  Each one is weak but together, they can make one hell of a dent and provide that missing Air Force that Ukraine lacks.  And quite a mass of troops where Ukraine is the battle field.  Trying to take Ukraine may not be the biggest blunder that Russia has ever done but it would be close to it and it would probably mean the end of Russia as it is today.  The Chinese might decide that they want a chunk of eastern Russia at the same time.  AFterall, what would be there to stop them.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First. Ukraine don't have any AWACS - neither A-50, nor A-100. The most close thing they have is An-30.
> ---------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antonov An-30 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Antonov An-30* (NATO reporting name: *Clank*), is a development of the An-24 designed for aerial cartography.
> ------------
> 
> Second. Neither Ukraine, nor Ukraine-Polish-Baltic-Balcan alliance (in a local war), nor the whole hypothetical EU Army (in a regional war) are able to defeat Russia. Only the USA (in large-scale war) have a chance to do it.
> Third. To defeat Russia, or be able to use Detterence Type II (against extremal Russian provication), the USA need to have the Credible First Strike Capability. It is not only about possibility to harm them. It is more about possibility to face Russian retaliation strike. And, to be able to face Russian retaliation strike and to prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers (and therefore - postattack blackmail) - the USA need many relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range AAMs (better - with both nuclear and conventional warheads) and it is obviously not F-35.
Click to expand...


They have one "Gifted" to them in 2010 from Russia.  And there are enough AWACs flying around the borders to get the job done.  Ukraine just isn't that large.  We both know that Ukraine can field over 400,000 ground troops over night.  Poland tosses in another 100,000, the other baltics toss in another 100,000.  It's up to 600,000.  They bring their equipment with them.  What's to say that ex military from other countries don't show up to fly those Aircraft that are being "Gifted" to the Ukranians and the Baltic States.  Remember the Ravens?  Or how about the Flying Tigers.  Or the Eagle Squadrons.  Sorry, Ivan but it's not always to your advantage just because you say it is.  Like I said, invading Ukraine may not be the worst thing Russia has ever done but it's damned close if it were to happen.  Ukraine is starting to get serious about your leaving.  I suggest you hike your skirts up and go home from the dance.  It's getting ready to get damned ugly.  Donnie isn't President anymore.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Poland get involved, it will take only 5 days to finish it's existence, according their own command stuff exercises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure
> 
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercises were held in Poland, but their results were extremely sad for the Polish military. Combat simulation even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS MLRS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.topcor.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure*
> February 2 2021
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercise was held in Poland, but its results were extremely sad for the Polish military. The simulation of military operations even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland, but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, MLRS HIMARS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish portal Onet, citing a number of media outlets in their country.
> 
> According to the Polish Internet edition Interia, several thousand officers took part in the exercise. During the simulation, literally everything was taken into account. Even a reformed system of military command and control was used. But the exercises ended not only in complete failure, but in a gigantic disaster. The Polish Armed Forces were defeated in a very short time and ceased to exist.
> 
> The war is lost in 5 days
> 
> - stated in Interia.
> 
> The portal clarified that the fierce defense on the eastern front led to the defeat of military units and huge losses among the military personnel. On the fifth day the enemy reached the Vistula line, but Poland no longer had an army to defend it.
> 
> The battles for Warsaw were still going on, but the ports were already either blocked or captured by the enemy. The aviation and navy no longer existed as a branch of the armed forces. The ground forces lost 60-80 percent of their personnel. The exercise caused real confusion in the ranks of the military.
> 
> In turn, the Polish tabloid Super Express provided additional information, referring to its informants. Initially, the Polish Armed Forces planned to hold the defense for 22 days before the arrival of reinforcements in the form of forces of NATO allies. However, on the fourth day Warsaw was surrounded, and the enemy was advancing westward. Everything went completely wrong as planned by the Polish military leaders. Moreover, the commanders of some units were shocked by the assigned tasks and refused to complete them.
> 
> The head of state Andrzej Duda and the head of the military department Mariusz Blaszak were familiarized with the results of the exercises. At the same time, the office of the President of Poland and the Ministry of National Defense refused to comment on the above information, citing secrecy, the Polish media summed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the obvious.
> 
> What if substantial NATO forces are already in Poland when the war begins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will be crushed too, then. Russia has three Tank Armies at the Ukrainian border plus two (maybe three) Tank Corps in the DPR and LPR.
> Actually, it is more, than the whole Europe has or able to send in the Poland. Also it means that it is a "regional war" from its very beginning and Russia is going to use nukes (at least tactical).
> If there are American forces, and Russia is sure, that the USA are determined to use it - it is a "large scale-war" from its very beginning, and Russia has only one choice - between "uncontrolled escalation" (or, may be, "escalation for de-escalation", if they believe that the USA may retreat after a really serious demonstration of power and decisiveness) or "preemptive strike" (in which American retaliation strike will be significantly weakened or may be even prevented by "postattack blackmail").
Click to expand...


The Russian Military knows the price of using even a single Nuke.  And for Strategic Nukes, there can't be any preemptive strikes by either side.  You know nothing about the Strategic Nuclear Forces of either side.  But I spent 8 years in SAC and know that since I left safeguards have been put in place to prevent preemptive strikes.  But the policy of the US is don't use a single nuke because it's all or nothing.  That's prevented you Russians from pulling that crap on Europe since the first day you discovered how to make a Nuke.  There would be NO measured attack.  This plan of yours died in the 80s under Reagan and we haven't changed from it since.

If you need to use nukes to win, pull up your bloomers and go home.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
Click to expand...






The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.

They know the same thing will happen to them.


----------



## Siberian

Dayton3 said:


> The U.S. will destroy Russia eventually.    Destroying most of their conventional military,   eliminating their nuclear arsenal and seizing half their territory,  permanently.
> 
> The U.S. becomes the largest nation on Earth thereafter.
> 
> It's the only way the world will know peace.




lol, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed and here sleepy Joe comes, the conquestor... 

the US will disintegrate in 5-10 years via civil/racial war. Whites wil be minority in 15-20 years, but even now colored people constitute majority in ages up to 30 y. o. Whites are old and sit at their TVs while young minorities - like BLM - make history.

When the Ponzi scheme - which US Debt is - crumbles - US economy will crash, depriving peope of savings and any means for living, it will lead people to the streets and will start civil war.

All Russia and China have go do is to wait these 10 years, and to successfully prevent nuclear war, since a cornered rat, which the US is, may start it.
This is the main task - not to allow to America to destroy the World on its way to hell.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
Click to expand...


lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots 
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia. 

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.


----------



## Siberian

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Poland get involved, it will take only 5 days to finish it's existence, according their own command stuff exercises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure
> 
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercises were held in Poland, but their results were extremely sad for the Polish military. Combat simulation even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS MLRS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.topcor.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The war is lost in 5 days": the exercises of the Polish army "Winter-20" ended in complete failure*
> February 2 2021
> 
> The Zima-20 command-staff exercise was held in Poland, but its results were extremely sad for the Polish military. The simulation of military operations even included new weapons systems ordered by Poland, but not yet delivered, such as Patriot air defense systems, MLRS HIMARS and F-35 fighters, writes the Polish portal Onet, citing a number of media outlets in their country.
> 
> According to the Polish Internet edition Interia, several thousand officers took part in the exercise. During the simulation, literally everything was taken into account. Even a reformed system of military command and control was used. But the exercises ended not only in complete failure, but in a gigantic disaster. The Polish Armed Forces were defeated in a very short time and ceased to exist.
> 
> The war is lost in 5 days
> 
> - stated in Interia.
> 
> The portal clarified that the fierce defense on the eastern front led to the defeat of military units and huge losses among the military personnel. On the fifth day the enemy reached the Vistula line, but Poland no longer had an army to defend it.
> 
> The battles for Warsaw were still going on, but the ports were already either blocked or captured by the enemy. The aviation and navy no longer existed as a branch of the armed forces. The ground forces lost 60-80 percent of their personnel. The exercise caused real confusion in the ranks of the military.
> 
> In turn, the Polish tabloid Super Express provided additional information, referring to its informants. Initially, the Polish Armed Forces planned to hold the defense for 22 days before the arrival of reinforcements in the form of forces of NATO allies. However, on the fourth day Warsaw was surrounded, and the enemy was advancing westward. Everything went completely wrong as planned by the Polish military leaders. Moreover, the commanders of some units were shocked by the assigned tasks and refused to complete them.
> 
> The head of state Andrzej Duda and the head of the military department Mariusz Blaszak were familiarized with the results of the exercises. At the same time, the office of the President of Poland and the Ministry of National Defense refused to comment on the above information, citing secrecy, the Polish media summed up.
Click to expand...

I would not trust NATO with such results, it's notging but a form of fearmongering, "Russisns are coming", to boost military spending and put more US bases on Polish-Russian border. .


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
Click to expand...


Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
Click to expand...

red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian? 
1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. will destroy Russia eventually.    Destroying most of their conventional military,   eliminating their nuclear arsenal and seizing half their territory,  permanently.
> 
> The U.S. becomes the largest nation on Earth thereafter.
> 
> It's the only way the world will know peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed and here sleepy Joe comes, the conquestor...
> 
> the US will disintegrate in 5-10 years via civil/racial war. Whites wil be minority in 15-20 years, but even now colored people constitute majority in ages up to 30 y. o. Whites are old and sit at their TVs while young minorities - like BLM - make history.
> 
> When the Ponzi scheme - which US Debt is - crumbles - US economy will crash, depriving peope of savings and any means for living, it will lead people to the streets and will start civil war.
> 
> All Russia and China have go do is to wait these 10 years, and to successfully prevent nuclear war, since a cornered rat, which the US is, may start it.
> This is the main task - not to allow to America to destroy the World on its way to hell.
Click to expand...


Not a word of that is the least bit true.    And who cares about Joe Biden?   He won't be around in 2030 or 2040.   Perhaps not even that long.


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
Click to expand...


The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.


----------



## Siberian

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. will destroy Russia eventually.    Destroying most of their conventional military,   eliminating their nuclear arsenal and seizing half their territory,  permanently.
> 
> The U.S. becomes the largest nation on Earth thereafter.
> 
> It's the only way the world will know peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed and here sleepy Joe comes, the conquestor...
> 
> the US will disintegrate in 5-10 years via civil/racial war. Whites wil be minority in 15-20 years, but even now colored people constitute majority in ages up to 30 y. o. Whites are old and sit at their TVs while young minorities - like BLM - make history.
> 
> When the Ponzi scheme - which US Debt is - crumbles - US economy will crash, depriving peope of savings and any means for living, it will lead people to the streets and will start civil war.
> 
> All Russia and China have go do is to wait these 10 years, and to successfully prevent nuclear war, since a cornered rat, which the US is, may start it.
> This is the main task - not to allow to America to destroy the World on its way to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a word of that is the least bit true.    And who cares about Joe Biden?   He won't be around in 2030 or 2040.   Perhaps not even that long.
Click to expand...


what is not true?
that you have unsustainable debt of more than 100% of GDP?
that you have budget deficite of >50%?
or that the Fed has to print money like crazy, with ecceleration, every time multiplying number of trillions...

you are just 2 steps from becoming another Venezuela, wiyh that difference that you also have racial crisis and warm civil war in which people die already...


----------



## Siberian

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
Click to expand...


and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?  
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
Click to expand...


Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.


----------



## Dayton3

Siberian said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. will destroy Russia eventually.    Destroying most of their conventional military,   eliminating their nuclear arsenal and seizing half their territory,  permanently.
> 
> The U.S. becomes the largest nation on Earth thereafter.
> 
> It's the only way the world will know peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed and here sleepy Joe comes, the conquestor...
> 
> the US will disintegrate in 5-10 years via civil/racial war. Whites wil be minority in 15-20 years, but even now colored people constitute majority in ages up to 30 y. o. Whites are old and sit at their TVs while young minorities - like BLM - make history.
> 
> When the Ponzi scheme - which US Debt is - crumbles - US economy will crash, depriving peope of savings and any means for living, it will lead people to the streets and will start civil war.
> 
> All Russia and China have go do is to wait these 10 years, and to successfully prevent nuclear war, since a cornered rat, which the US is, may start it.
> This is the main task - not to allow to America to destroy the World on its way to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a word of that is the least bit true.    And who cares about Joe Biden?   He won't be around in 2030 or 2040.   Perhaps not even that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is not true?
> that you have unsustainable debt of more than 100% of GDP?
> that you have budget deficite of >50%?
> or that the Fed has to print money like crazy, with ecceleration, every time multiplying number of trillions...
> 
> you are just 2 steps from becoming another Venezuela, wiyh that difference that you also have racial crisis and warm civil war in which people die already...
Click to expand...


None of what you claimed is true.    Not even close.

As one observer said not too long ago.

"The  United States is just one budget agreement from dominating the 21st century the same way it dominated the 20th.


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
Click to expand...

Nucleophobia detected. Ok. Let's play the game:
1) It is year 2022. Biden's Administration don't believe in the possibility of the Russian preemptive nuclear strike. Send US forces in Poland to support Ukrainian attack against Donbass and Crimea, and force other NATO members to do same.
2) Russian believe that the USA are really dermined to fight a war against Russia, and decided to attack first. Biden don't believe in Russian preparations (including evacuation of their cities) , call it "bluff", continue concentration of the forces.
3) Russia start with the sudden attack - 500 targets in the continental part of the USA (all silos, almost all strategic airbases, some submarines) are eliminated, as well as three "Ohio" class submarines in sea. The USA still have two "Ohio" SSBNs with twenty SLBMs each with 4 W76-1 90 kt warhead each at their stations. That means that you have only 160 of 90kt warheads against fully prepared Russian ABD, Air defence to hit almost evacuated cities, and almost 2000 of their warheads.
4) Russian suggest you to surrender, or, at least, don't use nukes against civilian targets and say, that they will destroy ten American cities in the exchange for one Russian city. Will you agree?


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.
Click to expand...

Russia is going to start preemptive war just to avoid uncontrolled escalation and prevent start of the nuclear exchange at the American terms. 
It is not choice between war and peace. It is a choice between being hit by 1600 and 160 warheads.


----------



## Siberian

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.
Click to expand...

easily, if it hapens in Crimea, for example, which is Russian territory and which the US doesn't recognize Russian. 
or in isolated Kaliningrad, which would mean occupation and probably loss of that territory, or in Donetsk and Lugabsk republics, ehere already 400 000 people have Russian citizenship, Russisn defeat there means genocide agaibst Russians, so is not an option in any case. 
etc.


----------



## Siberian

Dayton3 said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. will destroy Russia eventually.    Destroying most of their conventional military,   eliminating their nuclear arsenal and seizing half their territory,  permanently.
> 
> The U.S. becomes the largest nation on Earth thereafter.
> 
> It's the only way the world will know peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, Napoleon failed, Hitler failed and here sleepy Joe comes, the conquestor...
> 
> the US will disintegrate in 5-10 years via civil/racial war. Whites wil be minority in 15-20 years, but even now colored people constitute majority in ages up to 30 y. o. Whites are old and sit at their TVs while young minorities - like BLM - make history.
> 
> When the Ponzi scheme - which US Debt is - crumbles - US economy will crash, depriving peope of savings and any means for living, it will lead people to the streets and will start civil war.
> 
> All Russia and China have go do is to wait these 10 years, and to successfully prevent nuclear war, since a cornered rat, which the US is, may start it.
> This is the main task - not to allow to America to destroy the World on its way to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a word of that is the least bit true.    And who cares about Joe Biden?   He won't be around in 2030 or 2040.   Perhaps not even that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is not true?
> that you have unsustainable debt of more than 100% of GDP?
> that you have budget deficite of >50%?
> or that the Fed has to print money like crazy, with ecceleration, every time multiplying number of trillions...
> 
> you are just 2 steps from becoming another Venezuela, wiyh that difference that you also have racial crisis and warm civil war in which people die already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you claimed is true.    Not even close.
> 
> As one observer said not too long ago.
> 
> "The  United States is just one budget agreement from dominating the 21st century the same way it dominated the 20th.
Click to expand...


you are just poortly informed, to put it politely


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
Click to expand...







Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
Click to expand...


Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.


Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
Click to expand...


That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
Click to expand...


Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
Click to expand...


Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> easily, if it hapens in Crimea, for example, which is Russian territory and which the US doesn't recognize Russian.
> or in isolated Kaliningrad, which would mean occupation and probably loss of that territory, or in Donetsk and Lugabsk republics, ehere already 400 000 people have Russian citizenship, Russisn defeat there means genocide agaibst Russians, so is not an option in any case.
> etc.
Click to expand...


It's not your property.  Get over it.  As Ukraine builds, it's going to get more costly to stay there.  Already, russia is pulling the regular troops and training "Rebels".


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.
Click to expand...






Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Ok. Let's play the game:
> 1) It is year 2022. Biden's Administration don't believe in the possibility of the Russian preemptive nuclear strike. Send US forces in Poland to support Ukrainian attack against Donbass and Crimea, and force other NATO members to do same.
> 2) Russian believe that the USA are really dermined to fight a war against Russia, and decided to attack first. Biden don't believe in Russian preparations (including evacuation of their cities) , call it "bluff", continue concentration of the forces.
> 3) Russia start with the sudden attack - 500 targets in the continental part of the USA (all silos, almost all strategic airbases, some submarines) are eliminated, as well as three "Ohio" class submarines in sea. The USA still have two "Ohio" SSBNs with twenty SLBMs each with 4 W76-1 90 kt warhead each at their stations. That means that you have only 160 of 90kt warheads against fully prepared Russian ABD, Air defence to hit almost evacuated cities, and almost 2000 of their warheads.
> 4) Russian suggest you to surrender, or, at least, don't use nukes against civilian targets and say, that they will destroy ten American cities in the exchange for one Russian city. Will you agree?
Click to expand...

The problem with your fantasy is that prepared or not, as soon as Russia is detected making a massive launch aimed at American targets, the American president flushes all land based missiles and launches all manned bombers under the "use it or lose it" doctrine.  No president will sit out an attack and we can predict impacts of missiles within seconds of launch. You'd get your counter force launch off only the hit silos whose missiles were already on the way to destroy Russia.  Then you'd very likely get hit by a wave of Chinese missiles to prevent you from interfering with their conquest of Siberia and whatever parts of Russia they want.  Russia today is in a far worse strategic position than Nazi Germany was in 1939.  It has a garbage economy and has managed to make the three most productive economies on the planet it's enemies.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.
Click to expand...


You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians?  Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria.    And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them.  How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans.  Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that.  I guess his Leader told him to do it.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.
Click to expand...


Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden - what does it mean? 
and another question - why not Mozambique?


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden - what does it mean?
> and another question - why not Mozambique?
Click to expand...


Since the original intent of Stalin was the World, why not the World?  Pick up your skirts and Bloomers and just go home.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians?  Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria.    And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them.  How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans.  Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that.  I guess his Leader told him to do it.
Click to expand...






The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place.  What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now.  The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it.  Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians.  The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.  

Thus the F-35 is useless.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians?  Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria.    And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them.  How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans.  Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that.  I guess his Leader told him to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place.  What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now.  The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it.  Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians.  The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.
> 
> Thus the F-35 is useless.
Click to expand...


Ah, the big lie.


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> easily, if it hapens in Crimea, for example, which is Russian territory and which the US doesn't recognize Russian.
> or in isolated Kaliningrad, which would mean occupation and probably loss of that territory, or in Donetsk and Lugabsk republics, ehere already 400 000 people have Russian citizenship, Russisn defeat there means genocide agaibst Russians, so is not an option in any case.
> etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not your property.  Get over it.  As Ukraine builds, it's going to get more costly to stay there.  Already, russia is pulling the regular troops and training "Rebels".
Click to expand...


Ukraine gradually slips into economic chaos, its only hope is external help and the only way to increase external help is to start war with Russia, then the US may not limit its aid to a couple of millions.


Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden - what does it mean?
> and another question - why not Mozambique?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the original intent of Stalin was the World, why not the World?  Pick up your skirts and Bloomers and just go home.
Click to expand...


Stalin?  
how old are you?


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians?  Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria.    And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them.  How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans.  Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that.  I guess his Leader told him to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place.  What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now.  The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it.  Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians.  The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.
> 
> Thus the F-35 is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the big lie.
Click to expand...







Yes, the dems stole the election.   The third worldesque inauguration proves it.

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.  It is not worth what we are spending on it.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.



You have any evidence to support that claim?


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
Click to expand...








Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
Click to expand...


The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.  

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> easily, if it hapens in Crimea, for example, which is Russian territory and which the US doesn't recognize Russian.
> or in isolated Kaliningrad, which would mean occupation and probably loss of that territory, or in Donetsk and Lugabsk republics, ehere already 400 000 people have Russian citizenship, Russisn defeat there means genocide agaibst Russians, so is not an option in any case.
> etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not your property.  Get over it.  As Ukraine builds, it's going to get more costly to stay there.  Already, russia is pulling the regular troops and training "Rebels".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ukraine gradually slips into economic chaos, its only hope is external help and the only way to increase external help is to start war with Russia, then the US may not limit its aid to a couple of millions.
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden - what does it mean?
> and another question - why not Mozambique?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the original intent of Stalin was the World, why not the World?  Pick up your skirts and Bloomers and just go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin?
> how old are you?
Click to expand...


Obviously a lot older than you are.  Stalin is within my lifetime.  I also spent time in Poland when it was part of the Warsaw Pact.  And Spain under Franco.  And came within a second or two in going to Moscow for the Olympics before it was boycotted by Reagan.   I had all the briefings, had all the paperwork including the Visas and Passport.  The only thing I didn't have was the purchase of the Rubles.  Had we gone there, each of us would have had only select places we could go (the Rich Sections of Moscow) and we would have had a Russian Agent assigned to follow each of every step of the way.  And we HAD to be in Uniform.  IT would have been one of the worst "Vacations" I ever had in my life.  I doubt if much has changed after Putin got in power.  

so don't you try and con me on how great it is where you live.  I'll take the US hands over foot every time.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
Click to expand...


I agree in the AV-8B replacement but I find that it's an interim for all the others.  But the F-35 is directly responsible for the creation of the next generation of a fighter for the AF and a separate fighter for the Navy.  The last all service Fighter was the F-4.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians?  Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria.    And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them.  How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans.  Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that.  I guess his Leader told him to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place.  What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now.  The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it.  Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians.  The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.
> 
> Thus the F-35 is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the big lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the dems stole the election.   The third worldesque inauguration proves it.
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.  It is not worth what we are spending on it.
Click to expand...


Wow, two big lies in a row.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
Click to expand...









It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
Click to expand...


Congress thought it would save money


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
Click to expand...


And what we got was something that is 10 to 15 years ahead of anything else right now.  Yes, I agree, the AF and Navy would have been better off going their own way.  But the AV-8B needed to be replaced.  And the funds to get that replacement was drained from the other two.  The good news is, the new FXX programs are correcting that discrepency.  But much of the F-35 is going into the new fighter making it cheaper to build and have even more capability.  Mostly, the F-35A is what is lending itself to those improvements.  So not all is lost.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians?  Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria.    And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them.  How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans.  Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that.  I guess his Leader told him to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place.  What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now.  The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it.  Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians.  The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.
> 
> Thus the F-35 is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the big lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the dems stole the election.   The third worldesque inauguration proves it.
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.  It is not worth what we are spending on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, two big lies in a row.
Click to expand...







Oh, you tell far more lies than that drain bamage.  The F-35 though, is a boondoggle.  Pure and simple.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress thought it would save money
Click to expand...






Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too.  The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters.  But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get.  Common airframes are compromises.  Compromises kill in the modern era.


----------



## AZrailwhale

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress thought it would save money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too.  The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters.  But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get.  Common airframes are compromises.  Compromises kill in the modern era.
Click to expand...

The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all.  The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7.  Neither of which were designed as common airframes.


----------



## westwall

AZrailwhale said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress thought it would save money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too.  The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters.  But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get.  Common airframes are compromises.  Compromises kill in the modern era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all.  The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7.  Neither of which were designed as common airframes.
Click to expand...






The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft.  It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's.  The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did.  If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me.  As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well.  ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability.  That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.


----------



## Silver Cat

F-35 is almost useless in a large-scale war, because it can't intercept warheads of ballistic missiles at all, and not effective in the interception of CMs and big bombers. 
F-35 is not effective in the local conflicts, because it still can't use cheap gravity bombs, it's maintenance is expensive, and it demands expensive "universal" pilots.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
Click to expand...

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?


----------



## Dayton3

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
Click to expand...


There will be no Russian preemptive strike.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.
Click to expand...

Both Russian and Swedens take this "possibility" as a stupid joke.

And yes, joining NATO will bring them more instability than stability. 



> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one "problem". Many Russians and Ukrainians believe that they have one common Mother Land. They believe that Ukraine (Borderland) is a part of Russia (or Russia is a part of Ukraine), and most of them don't recognize each other as "foreigners".
Click to expand...


----------



## Siberian

Vrenn said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> easily, if it hapens in Crimea, for example, which is Russian territory and which the US doesn't recognize Russian.
> or in isolated Kaliningrad, which would mean occupation and probably loss of that territory, or in Donetsk and Lugabsk republics, ehere already 400 000 people have Russian citizenship, Russisn defeat there means genocide agaibst Russians, so is not an option in any case.
> etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not your property.  Get over it.  As Ukraine builds, it's going to get more costly to stay there.  Already, russia is pulling the regular troops and training "Rebels".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ukraine gradually slips into economic chaos, its only hope is external help and the only way to increase external help is to start war with Russia, then the US may not limit its aid to a couple of millions.
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden - what does it mean?
> and another question - why not Mozambique?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the original intent of Stalin was the World, why not the World?  Pick up your skirts and Bloomers and just go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin?
> how old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously a lot older than you are.  Stalin is within my lifetime.  I also spent time in Poland when it was part of the Warsaw Pact.  And Spain under Franco.  And came within a second or two in going to Moscow for the Olympics before it was boycotted by Reagan.   I had all the briefings, had all the paperwork including the Visas and Passport.  The only thing I didn't have was the purchase of the Rubles.  Had we gone there, each of us would have had only select places we could go (the Rich Sections of Moscow) and we would have had a Russian Agent assigned to follow each of every step of the way.  And we HAD to be in Uniform.  IT would have been one of the worst "Vacations" I ever had in my life.  I doubt if much has changed after Putin got in power.
> 
> so don't you try and con me on how great it is where you live.  I'll take the US hands over foot every time.
Click to expand...


lol, you are really a museum artefact, and judging on your beliefs and convictions - rather from the Middle Ages section


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
Click to expand...


Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way. 

And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".

Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
Click to expand...


In the late 70s or early 80s that plan was leaked from the Soviet Union.  It was damned alarming.  But we learned that the Soviet Military was not in support of it and probably would not have went along with it.  That order alone may have been the end of the Soviet Union Government as it stood.  That plan has been abandoned by both sides now.  Even though the Army has the capability to use Tactical Nukes they don't control the warheads.  They have to get them from the Air Force Arsenals.  And there aren't that may left.  Well according to the Military and we all know how truthful they are.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries.   While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others.  I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well.  You can call them "Advisors" if you wish.  But they are more like safety valves.  Like Korea.  We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again.  Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Russian and Swedens take this "possibility" as a stupid joke.
> 
> And yes, joining NATO will bring them more instability than stability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now.  The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.
> 
> They know the same thing will happen to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
> 1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong.  I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land.  Just pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one "problem". Many Russians and Ukrainians believe that they have one common Mother Land. They believe that Ukraine (Borderland) is a part of Russia (or Russia is a part of Ukraine), and most of them don't recognize each other as "foreigners".
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And that is why we have exercises in those countries all the time.


----------



## Vrenn

Siberian said:


> lol, you are really a museum artefact, and judging on your beliefs and convictions - rather from the Middle Ages section



Us old "Artifacts" hold the keys to the bus.  If we handed you the keys you would run it off the nearest cliff and kill everyone in the bus.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
Click to expand...


Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
Click to expand...

Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles. 
That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield. 








This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties. 
It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.


----------



## Silver Cat

About food. Russia have the whole Europe and Asia to get food from them. The USA neighbors are less populated and, therefore have less food, but it does not matter - anyway, they have enough to feed the USA (if they keep some nukes and conventional forces for blackmail, of course).


----------



## AZrailwhale

westwall said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress thought it would save money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too.  The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters.  But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get.  Common airframes are compromises.  Compromises kill in the modern era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all.  The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7.  Neither of which were designed as common airframes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft.  It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's.  The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did.  If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me.  As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well.  ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability.  That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.
Click to expand...

No, the F4 was designed as a pure bomber interceptor to be operated over blue water far out of range of fighters to defend carrier task forces from mass attacks by Soviet missile armed bombers.  The fact that it did other roles well was because it had two seats and very powerful engines.  At A7 was a light attack aircraft developed from the F8 Crusader for the Navy to replace the A4 Skyhawk and the Air Force adopted it for the same role.  Both were naval designs that the Air Force adopted with very minor modifications.  The F-35 and earlier F-111 are examples of politicians trying to save money by forcing incompatible objectives onto the same airframe. The F-35 was originally designed to be an stealthy attack plane, that once the anti-air threat was reduced could be loaded up with external bombs as a non-stealthy attack plane that had a tertiary mission of being a second line fighter.  It was intended as a naval aircraft.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
> We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 466206
> This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
> It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.
Click to expand...


You need to refigure.  The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs.  Almost twice what you used in your figures.  Nice lie.


----------



## westwall

AZrailwhale said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress thought it would save money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too.  The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters.  But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get.  Common airframes are compromises.  Compromises kill in the modern era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all.  The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7.  Neither of which were designed as common airframes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft.  It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's.  The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did.  If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me.  As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well.  ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability.  That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the F4 was designed as a pure bomber interceptor to be operated over blue water far out of range of fighters to defend carrier task forces from mass attacks by Soviet missile armed bombers.  The fact that it did other roles well was because it had two seats and very powerful engines.  At A7 was a light attack aircraft developed from the F8 Crusader for the Navy to replace the A4 Skyhawk and the Air Force adopted it for the same role.  Both were naval designs that the Air Force adopted with very minor modifications.  The F-35 and earlier F-111 are examples of politicians trying to save money by forcing incompatible objectives onto the same airframe. The F-35 was originally designed to be an stealthy attack plane, that once the anti-air threat was reduced could be loaded up with external bombs as a non-stealthy attack plane that had a tertiary mission of being a second line fighter.  It was intended as a naval aircraft.
Click to expand...







Year air superiority.


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
> We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 466206
> This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
> It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to refigure.  The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs.  Almost twice what you used in your figures.  Nice lie.
Click to expand...


Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads.    They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.


----------



## Dayton3

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
> That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.
Click to expand...


1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets. 
2) Last I heard only TWO,   Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time.    One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the  Pacific of course.
3) Also last I heard,   both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.

4) I know what you'll say next.    Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port.    But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs.    Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
> We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 466206
> This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
> It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to refigure.  The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs.  Almost twice what you used in your figures.  Nice lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads.    They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.
Click to expand...

Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
> That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets.
> 2) Last I heard only TWO,   Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time.    One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the  Pacific of course.
> 3) Also last I heard,   both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.
> 
> 4) I know what you'll say next.    Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port.    But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs.    Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

1) It depends... For example, R-29RMU2 Layner with 500 kt warheads is pretty good even for silos. 
2), 3),4)We are not talking about "any given moment". We are talking about well prepared Russian preemptive strike, ignored by the Sleeping Joe. He call it "bluff" and ordered don't take care about them.


----------



## Dayton3

Silver Cat said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
> That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets.
> 2) Last I heard only TWO,   Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time.    One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the  Pacific of course.
> 3) Also last I heard,   both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.
> 
> 4) I know what you'll say next.    Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port.    But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs.    Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It depends... For example, R-29RMU2 Layner with 500 kt warheads is pretty good even for silos.
> 2), 3),4)We are not talking about "any given moment". We are talking about well prepared Russian preemptive strike, ignored by the Sleeping Joe. He call it "bluff" and ordered don't take care about them.
Click to expand...


What makes you think Joe Biden or an equally incompetent U.S. president will be in office by the time Russia decides to launch a preemptive strike against the U.S.?

And you should know that preparing  a surprise nuclear attack is not something that is all that easy to conceal.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
> We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 466206
> This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
> It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to refigure.  The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs.  Almost twice what you used in your figures.  Nice lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads.    They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.
> View attachment 466248
Click to expand...


I can tell that the chart is bogus.  You left off two of the Nuke loaded AC.  The B-1 and the F-35.  I would estimate the data taken to make that chart would date back to the early 90s right after the B-2 was introduced.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
> That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets.
> 2) Last I heard only TWO,   Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time.    One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the  Pacific of course.
> 3) Also last I heard,   both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.
> 
> 4) I know what you'll say next.    Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port.    But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs.    Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It depends... For example, R-29RMU2 Layner with 500 kt warheads is pretty good even for silos.
> 2), 3),4)We are not talking about "any given moment". We are talking about well prepared Russian preemptive strike, ignored by the Sleeping Joe. He call it "bluff" and ordered don't take care about them.
Click to expand...


The US military won't ignore it and neither would the Russian Military the other way around.  And the only thing the President does is gets to authorize the actual launches.  Most of everything else will be done by both sides Military.  And if the Russians do launch, minutes later, the US launches since there is absolutely nothing to lose anyway.  

You are still trying to come up ways for the Russians to win in any kind of direct confrontation with the US.  Not going to happen.  Even if you kept it conventional.  Don't fuck with the Eagle.


----------



## Silver Cat

Dayton3 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
> That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets.
> 2) Last I heard only TWO,   Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time.    One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the  Pacific of course.
> 3) Also last I heard,   both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.
> 
> 4) I know what you'll say next.    Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port.    But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs.    Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It depends... For example, R-29RMU2 Layner with 500 kt warheads is pretty good even for silos.
> 2), 3),4)We are not talking about "any given moment". We are talking about well prepared Russian preemptive strike, ignored by the Sleeping Joe. He call it "bluff" and ordered don't take care about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think Joe Biden or an equally incompetent U.S. president will be in office by the time Russia decides to launch a preemptive strike against the U.S.?
> 
> And you should know that preparing  a surprise nuclear attack is not something that is all that easy to conceal.
Click to expand...

Yes, two questions often answer each other. This scenario is possible only with a really incompetent administration, which believes in "Mutual Assured Destruction" and therefore believes that there is no such thing as the Detterence Type II, i.e. the "Credible First Strike Capability" as response to extremal non-nuclear provocation.
Sure, there is no such thing as 100% reliable plan of successful nuclear war (or any other war). That's why, both the USA and Russia are not going to attack another side "out of blue" and just for lulz - even if there are no retaliation strike at all (in the case of totally successful combination of preemptive strike and postattack blackmail), the fall of the large country and change of balance of power will cause many problems by itself.
The nuclear detterence is something much more complicated and sophisticated than orgiastic spasm of the total annihilation by mutual all-out strikes. And the first rule is: "Do not strain your enemy too much".
That's why only really serious menace (like a chance to lose thirty millions of Ukrainian souls, or lose control at the Black Sea) may force Russians to start preemptive war against the USA. And only totally incompetent Administration can demonstrate such a treat without really serious reasons.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
> That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets.
> 2) Last I heard only TWO,   Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time.    One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the  Pacific of course.
> 3) Also last I heard,   both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.
> 
> 4) I know what you'll say next.    Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port.    But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs.    Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It depends... For example, R-29RMU2 Layner with 500 kt warheads is pretty good even for silos.
> 2), 3),4)We are not talking about "any given moment". We are talking about well prepared Russian preemptive strike, ignored by the Sleeping Joe. He call it "bluff" and ordered don't take care about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US military won't ignore it and neither would the Russian Military the other way around.  And the only thing the President does is gets to authorize the actual launches.  Most of everything else will be done by both sides Military.  And if the Russians do launch, minutes later, the US launches since there is absolutely nothing to lose anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are things to lose. For example - American citizens and their property. The first strike was counterforce (and the USA lost 90% of nukes and, say, less than 1% of population) . The second one is going to be countervalue, and if you have no tool to prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers (and F-35 is definitely not such a tool) your position is very vulnerable.



> You are still trying to come up ways for the Russians to win in any kind of direct confrontation with the US.  Not going to happen.  Even if you kept it conventional.  Don't fuck with the Eagle.


The Russians can win only if the Americans will be stupid. For example, stupid enough to ignore Russian preparation to the first counterforce attack. And the USA can win only if the Russians will be stupid. For example, stupid enough to play "gentle conventional war" against the whole NATO.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no Russian preemptive strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning.  You can't get an ICBM ready in less time.  They aren't even targeted anymore  And both sides have auditors.  The  ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike.  Meaning, NO winners.    Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
> That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets.
> 2) Last I heard only TWO,   Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time.    One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the  Pacific of course.
> 3) Also last I heard,   both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.
> 
> 4) I know what you'll say next.    Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port.    But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs.    Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) It depends... For example, R-29RMU2 Layner with 500 kt warheads is pretty good even for silos.
> 2), 3),4)We are not talking about "any given moment". We are talking about well prepared Russian preemptive strike, ignored by the Sleeping Joe. He call it "bluff" and ordered don't take care about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US military won't ignore it and neither would the Russian Military the other way around.  And the only thing the President does is gets to authorize the actual launches.  Most of everything else will be done by both sides Military.  And if the Russians do launch, minutes later, the US launches since there is absolutely nothing to lose anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there are things to lose. For example - American citizens and their property. The first strike was counterforce (and the USA lost 90% of nukes and, say, less than 1% of population) . The second one is going to be countervalue, and if you have no tool to prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers (and F-35 is definitely not such a tool) your position is very vulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still trying to come up ways for the Russians to win in any kind of direct confrontation with the US.  Not going to happen.  Even if you kept it conventional.  Don't fuck with the Eagle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Russians can win only if the Americans will be stupid. For example, stupid enough to ignore Russian preparation to the first counterforce attack. And the USA can win only if the Russians will be stupid. For example, stupid enough to play "gentle conventional war" against the whole NATO.
Click to expand...


About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.  Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.  At some point, both sides will come to their senses.  But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.  And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.  The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.  Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.  It's a no win situation for both sides.  And just ain't going to happen.  But throw even one Nuke and it will happen.  And Russia will have to react like it will which means, here comes the ICBMs from both sides.

BTW, with the assets that NATO currently has, Russia could win.  But they have to do it by day 3.  I've seen the plan that was once considered and it did involve tactical nukes against many EU sites.  But that plan was abandoned when the US adopted the "Throw one Nuke and it's game on" policy.  Now, Russia will have about 7 days to defeat the EU and the NATO assets currently in place.  It can't do it.  But it can if given 2 weeks.  The problem is, on the second week, the US assets start rolling in hard and in great numbers.  And the ground that Russia took will be lost by week 4 plus a lot of other ground.  And Russia will cease to exist as you know it today.  What would replace it's government?  It's anyone guess.  Russia is a different bird than anywhere else on the planet so  I don't have the answers.  Hell,I don't even know all the questions.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
> We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 466206
> This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
> It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to refigure.  The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs.  Almost twice what you used in your figures.  Nice lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads.    They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.
> View attachment 466248
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell that the chart is bogus.  You left off two of the Nuke loaded AC.  The B-1 and the F-35.  I would estimate the data taken to make that chart would date back to the early 90s right after the B-2 was introduced.
Click to expand...

B-1s are not nuclear already, and F-35s are not nuclear yet. But anyway, F-35 is going to use B-61-12 only, which is almost useless in the GPS-degraded environment. The Lame duck, you know.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
> We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 466206
> This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
> It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to refigure.  The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs.  Almost twice what you used in your figures.  Nice lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads.    They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.
> View attachment 466248
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell that the chart is bogus.  You left off two of the Nuke loaded AC.  The B-1 and the F-35.  I would estimate the data taken to make that chart would date back to the early 90s right after the B-2 was introduced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B-1s are not nuclear already, and F-35s are not nuclear yet. But anyway, F-35 is going to use B-61-12 only, which is almost useless in the GPS-degraded environment. The Lame duck, you know.
Click to expand...


The B-61 for the F-35 (can be used anytime they want to ) is a dumb bomb with zero guidance.  Range depends on the height and speed of the Delivery Vehicle (F-35).  Estimated range is up to 50 miles.  And the F-35 can operate independent of the GPS.  Your once upon a time failed again.

As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers.  But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice.  And the stores are in the Armories where the B-1s are located at.  That becomes 67 more Nuke Carriers in the even of.......  Your once upon a time failed once again.


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers.  But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice.



Well not exactly.    The Permissive Action Links hardware would have to be reinstalled as well as a new wiring harness that nuclear weapons also depended on.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers.  But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well not exactly.    The Permissive Action Links hardware would have to be reinstalled as well as a new wiring harness that nuclear weapons also depended on.
Click to expand...


Not anything unsurmountable.  What are we talking about, a few hours, a day, a couple of  days? Do we fly them to areas that are not going to be hit and mod them for the next attack if there isn't enough time?  Or maybe we use them for Tankers by backflushing into KC type birds.  Maybe to keep the ECs RC and such so they can stay in the air?  I have a lot of faith in the utilization of the many resources.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Russians (as some of thr
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> End results;  US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%.  We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age.  Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia.  It's doomsday scenario.  And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better.  You fear it more than we do.  If you don't, you should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
> And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible).  Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack.  And what good does it do attacking sites already launched?  But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly.  So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs.  Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.
> 
> The damage won't be from just the blast areas.  The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area.  But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease.  In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today.  But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt.  Mexico actually benefits from it.  But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.
> 
> But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt.  It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.
> 
> AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air.  So they will have to take measures for that.  But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open.  The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread.  Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.
> 
> You think it's cold in Siberian now?
> 
> Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US.  The Entire world loses.  Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
> There are three main goals of any government in a war:
> 1) protect its citizens;
> 2) punish the enemy;
> 3) to win the war and the further peace.
> 
> Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
> Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
> Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
> Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
> Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.
> 
> How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
> Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
> Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.
> 
> I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just invade a NATO country and find out.  Putin is much more cautious on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1
> 
> Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.
> 
> everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.
> 
> in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying.  It ends up being the first and last option.  And both sides know it.  NO NUKES will be used by either side.  Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane.  Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just read Russian military doctrine,  the part about definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Военная доктрина Российской Федерации
> 
> 
> Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kremlin.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
> g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
> h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
> ---------------------------------
> The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  By your definition of "Regional  War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country.  And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear?  Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles.  They know how to fight.  But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting.  And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35.  But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.
> 
> Keep that in mind, Ivan.
> 
> And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads.  You may not like the response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks
> 
> I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
> Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.
> 
> I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash, Ivan.  Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine.  Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore.  You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
> he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
> as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves
> 
> You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....
> 
> 
> as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with the F-35?  If  you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on.    Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them.  The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia.  And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them.  But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X.  And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians.  There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well.  Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air.  Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory.   Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable.  The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.
> 
> if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As.  And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap.  The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V.  With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine.  Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014.  But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots.  What they lack are fighters.  And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
> One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.
> 
> Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.
> 
> All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters.    And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians.   Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
> start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer.  Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist.  WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot.  Pull up your bloomers and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices.  Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area.  In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets.  Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away.  So you lived through that.  Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more.  In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population.  The US will have a loss of 85%.  You only see the other side losing.  Newsflash:  Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it.  The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age.  But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom.  Good, keep it that way.
> 
> And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch.  You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy.  That population of Naval Population will be needed.  Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important.    Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".
> 
> Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore.  The US has it's southern.  In case  you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US.  When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia.  Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself.  You think the food lines are bad now.  You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition.  Cannibalism isn't the answer.  And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
> We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 466206
> This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
> It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to refigure.  The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs.  Almost twice what you used in your figures.  Nice lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads.    They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.
> View attachment 466248
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell that the chart is bogus.  You left off two of the Nuke loaded AC.  The B-1 and the F-35.  I would estimate the data taken to make that chart would date back to the early 90s right after the B-2 was introduced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> B-1s are not nuclear already, and F-35s are not nuclear yet. But anyway, F-35 is going to use B-61-12 only, which is almost useless in the GPS-degraded environment. The Lame duck, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The B-61 for the F-35 (can be used anytime they want to ) is a dumb bomb with zero guidance.  Range depends on the height and speed of the Delivery Vehicle (F-35).  Estimated range is up to 50 miles.  And the F-35 can operate independent of the GPS.  Your once upon a time failed again.
Click to expand...

B-61 of the earlier versions really are simple gravity bombs. And F-35 is [almost] not able to use dumb bombs. But B-61-12 is going to be a sort of INS+GPS-guided JDAM bomb. And as other JDAM bombs they can not be used in the GPS-degraded environment. 



> As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers.  But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice.  And the stores are in the Armories where the B-1s are located at.  That becomes 67 more Nuke Carriers in the even of.......


Not 67, but 62, and only six of them are fully mission-capable, as Gen. John Hayden told. 








						The Air Force’s B-1 bombers are in more dire shape than we thought
					

"We’re just beating the heck out of them, deploying them, deploying them," Gen. John Hyten told lawmakers.




					www.airforcetimes.com
				




Ok. But it is possible to return someone of them to the active service. You know it, the Russians know it. Very likely, that the bases with B-1 (if the USA ignore possibility of the Russian counterforce strike) are in the short list of the first-wave targets.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.


Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "




> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.


The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"



> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.


If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine. 



> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.


The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too. 




> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.


This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible. 



> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.


Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war. 



> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.


Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc. 



> It's a no win situation for both sides.


Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.


----------



## Silver Cat

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/05/adam-smith-f35/
		


The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee called the Lockheed Martin-produced F-35 Joint Strike Fighter a “rathole” in a virtual event with the Brookings Institution on Friday, and suggested the U.S. should consider whether to “cut its losses” by investing in a range of competing fighter jets.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
Click to expand...


You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.  

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.  

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?


----------



## AZrailwhale

westwall said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress thought it would save money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too.  The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters.  But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get.  Common airframes are compromises.  Compromises kill in the modern era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all.  The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7.  Neither of which were designed as common airframes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft.  It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's.  The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did.  If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me.  As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well.  ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability.  That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the F4 was designed as a pure bomber interceptor to be operated over blue water far out of range of fighters to defend carrier task forces from mass attacks by Soviet missile armed bombers.  The fact that it did other roles well was because it had two seats and very powerful engines.  At A7 was a light attack aircraft developed from the F8 Crusader for the Navy to replace the A4 Skyhawk and the Air Force adopted it for the same role.  Both were naval designs that the Air Force adopted with very minor modifications.  The F-35 and earlier F-111 are examples of politicians trying to save money by forcing incompatible objectives onto the same airframe. The F-35 was originally designed to be an stealthy attack plane, that once the anti-air threat was reduced could be loaded up with external bombs as a non-stealthy attack plane that had a tertiary mission of being a second line fighter.  It was intended as a naval aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Year air superiority.
Click to expand...

Air superiority is killing opposing fighters so as to control the air.  The RAF gained aerial superiority over Britain during the BOB by killing the Luftwaffe's fighters so the Luftwaffe's bombers couldn't operate.  The USAAF gained aerial superiority over Germany by killing off the Luftwaffe's fighters so the 8th AF bombers could operate.  Two different results of the same approach, in the BOB the bombers were denied the ability to operate, in the Battle of Germany, the bombers were granted the ability to operate.  The common thread is killing off the opposing fighters so as to control the airspace.  The Soviets were never going to control the airspace over the oceans because they had no fighters able to contest the USN's aerial supremacy.


----------



## westwall

AZrailwhale said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress thought it would save money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too.  The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters.  But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get.  Common airframes are compromises.  Compromises kill in the modern era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all.  The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7.  Neither of which were designed as common airframes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft.  It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's.  The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did.  If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me.  As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well.  ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability.  That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the F4 was designed as a pure bomber interceptor to be operated over blue water far out of range of fighters to defend carrier task forces from mass attacks by Soviet missile armed bombers.  The fact that it did other roles well was because it had two seats and very powerful engines.  At A7 was a light attack aircraft developed from the F8 Crusader for the Navy to replace the A4 Skyhawk and the Air Force adopted it for the same role.  Both were naval designs that the Air Force adopted with very minor modifications.  The F-35 and earlier F-111 are examples of politicians trying to save money by forcing incompatible objectives onto the same airframe. The F-35 was originally designed to be an stealthy attack plane, that once the anti-air threat was reduced could be loaded up with external bombs as a non-stealthy attack plane that had a tertiary mission of being a second line fighter.  It was intended as a naval aircraft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Year air superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Air superiority is killing opposing fighters so as to control the air.  The RAF gained aerial superiority over Britain during the BOB by killing the Luftwaffe's fighters so the Luftwaffe's bombers couldn't operate.  The USAAF gained aerial superiority over Germany by killing off the Luftwaffe's fighters so the 8th AF bombers could operate.  Two different results of the same approach, in the BOB the bombers were denied the ability to operate, in the Battle of Germany, the bombers were granted the ability to operate.  The common thread is killing off the opposing fighters so as to control the airspace.  The Soviets were never going to control the airspace over the oceans because they had no fighters able to contest the USN's aerial supremacy.
Click to expand...






Air superiority means just that, killing ALL enemy aircraft in the air.  The USAAF garnered air SUPREMACY, a huge difference, and not because we shot down their fighters, but because we destroyed their rail transport rolling stock so they were unable to transport fuel to the airfields.  The Germans had plenty of aircraft, they had no fuel to train their pilots nor put aircraft up in the air in any numbers.


----------



## ESay

I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.

It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.

I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?


----------



## Vrenn

ESay said:


> I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.
> 
> It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.
> 
> I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?



On the upper levels, it's not being discussed.  Oh, yah, sometimes you might have a Russian Politico bring it up but he's quickly tamped down by the more sane (if not corrupt) others. There is no profit in fighting the US by the Russian Oliarchs.  And to the real leaders in Russia, it's all about profit.  Screw with the Eagle hard enough (even with the nukes removed from the table) and the real powers in Russia will not make that profit and live so lavishly.  Meanwhile, our uber rich will profit from it.  On an economical point of view, Russia won't EVER push the Eagle that hard.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
Click to expand...

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".



> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.


I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".



> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.


Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".



> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.


Really? Oh, man...



> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?


You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico, Cuba and England for the USA.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.
> 
> It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.
> 
> I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the upper levels, it's not being discussed.  Oh, yah, sometimes you might have a Russian Politico bring it up but he's quickly tamped down by the more sane (if not corrupt) others. There is no profit in fighting the US by the Russian Oliarchs.
Click to expand...

Right now, it is the USA, who try to fight Russian Oligachs. And they would not became "oligarchs" if they didn't strike back in such situations (even with the risk of mutual destruction).



> And to the real leaders in Russia, it's all about profit.  Screw with the Eagle hard enough (even with the nukes removed from the table) and the real powers in Russia will not make that profit and live so lavishly.  Meanwhile, our uber rich will profit from it.  On an economical point of view, Russia won't EVER push the Eagle that hard.


You see, the very existence of the USA may be comfortable or not comfortable for the Russians (both rich and poor). Russian (as well as American) oligarchs became oligarchs not because they allowed anybody to take their profit.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.
> 
> It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.
> 
> I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the upper levels, it's not being discussed.  Oh, yah, sometimes you might have a Russian Politico bring it up but he's quickly tamped down by the more sane (if not corrupt) others. There is no profit in fighting the US by the Russian Oliarchs.  And to the real leaders in Russia, it's all about profit.  Screw with the Eagle hard enough (even with the nukes removed from the table) and the real powers in Russia will not make that profit and live so lavishly.  Meanwhile, our uber rich will profit from it.  On an economical point of view, Russia won't EVER push the Eagle that hard.
Click to expand...

To lose, say, 10% of their Russian business but to take 100% of the EU business? Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
Click to expand...

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Siberian said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities
> 
> 
> 
> How do they sing?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it supposed to mean something?
> I start thinking that Russians (including Ukrainians, which are also Russians) outnumber Americans in this forum
Click to expand...


Only some Ukrainians are Russians, you moron!


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
Click to expand...

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities. 
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union. 

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?


----------



## Silver Cat

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities
> 
> 
> 
> How do they sing?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it supposed to mean something?
> I start thinking that Russians (including Ukrainians, which are also Russians) outnumber Americans in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only some Ukrainians are Russians, you moron!
Click to expand...

Sounds like "only some Yanks are Americans". Ok it's depends on your definition of the terms "Russians" and "Ukrainians". But anyway, most of them (Russians, Ukrainians, Yanks, Americans) don't want to "defeat" anybody. They want safety and prosperity and search their ways for it.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
Click to expand...


In order to stop being American, yes.  To the very last soul.  The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations.  Don't piss off the Eagle.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
Click to expand...


There are three different airframes.  Try landing an A model and all you would have is spare parts that did not fall in the water off the flight deck and if it did managed to land, it would shoot off the other end because it has no ability to land on the carrier.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to stop being American, yes.  To the very last soul.  The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations.  Don't piss off the Eagle.
Click to expand...

Bla-bla-bla... Americans, who withdrew their forces from Vietnam are still Americans. It is not a big deal to withdraw forces from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe or whatever else.


----------



## westwall

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are three different airframes.  Try landing an A model and all you would have is spare parts that did not fall in the water off the flight deck and if it did managed to land, it would shoot off the other end because it has no ability to land on the carrier.
Click to expand...






The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.


----------



## Dayton3

westwall said:


> The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.



True.   But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role.     The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.


----------



## Vrenn

Silver Cat said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to stop being American, yes.  To the very last soul.  The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations.  Don't piss off the Eagle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bla-bla-bla... Americans, who withdrew their forces from Vietnam are still Americans. It is not a big deal to withdraw forces from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe or whatever else.
Click to expand...


That was under some really poor management.  Since then we have a phenominal winning record.  No more playing by anyone elses rules.  We now are back to fighting to win when we wish it.  And nothing your Russia can do can even slow that down.  Even after 2 Nuke throws from both sides, there will be US Marines in Moscow looking for your leaders if they are still alive and American Fighters over Moscow as well.  Russia will become the 51st state of the United States.  And that is before we have another election in the United States.  Even your worst won't destroy America.

This "Discussion" for me is over.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role.     The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.
Click to expand...


What most people don't understand, to the USN, there are NO Stealth Fighters or Bombers that exist.  And a SM-2 is meaner and nastier than a whole bushel basket full of Air to Air Missiles or just about anything a Fighter can carry close enough to get a shot at the carrier.  Yes, Stealth is being caught up with so everyone just finds another way.  I imagine that distance weapons like Lasers for Aircraft and Particle Weapons for Naval will be coming online soon.  But who knows.  Until then the F-35 is the bad boy on the block when paired up with the F-22 or the new F-15EX.


----------



## westwall

Dayton3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role.     The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.
Click to expand...







Correct.  And that is a mistake.  The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized.   Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to stop being American, yes.  To the very last soul.  The Japanese learned (sort of), the Germans learned that the US is NOT like other nations.  Don't piss off the Eagle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bla-bla-bla... Americans, who withdrew their forces from Vietnam are still Americans. It is not a big deal to withdraw forces from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe or whatever else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was under some really poor management.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that Baiden-Harris clique is better? Are you ready to perform a jump of faith by stressing the Russians without really good reasons, without really good weapon and without really good, specialized jets?



> Since then we have a phenominal winning record.  No more playing by anyone elses rules.  We now are back to fighting to win when we wish it.


Really? Wishful thinking is a nice thing, but it is really insufficient in some situations. And the winning a nuclear war is one of those situations. F-35 is not a tool to win the war against Russia and/or China.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role.     The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  And that is a mistake.  The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized.   Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.
Click to expand...


hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role.   We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers.  I think 1000 is plenty.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role.     The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  And that is a mistake.  The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized.   Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role.   We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers.  I think 1000 is plenty.
Click to expand...

No. Next gen fighters, are going to use AMRAAM, too. May be even after year 2032.


----------



## Silver Cat

What is even more important, both Russia and China improve their military forces, while the current Administration do everything to lose this arms race. 
Did you see this new PLA's promo video?


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role.   We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers.  I think 1000 is plenty.



Except you miss the obvious.   1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time. 

Is that "plenty"?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

westwall said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have any evidence to support that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled,  yet wasn't.   Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The F-35 has never been cancelled because:
> 
> 1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.
> 
> 2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.
> 
> So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming.  That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are three different airframes.  Try landing an A model and all you would have is spare parts that did not fall in the water off the flight deck and if it did managed to land, it would shoot off the other end because it has no ability to land on the carrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.
Click to expand...


Will you push the "I believe button"?  These are NOT the same aircraft.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role.   We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers.  I think 1000 is plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you miss the obvious.   1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time.
> 
> Is that "plenty"?
Click to expand...


Yes.  When it's backed by 333 other Fighters.  The US can bring more than 1000 fighters to the table at any time of day in a matter of a day or two.  The US has the absolute largest Air Wing (AF, Navy, Marines, Army) in the world.  In fact (can't prove this) the US can field more Air Wing at any time and any place more than the rest of the world combined.


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role.   We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers.  I think 1000 is plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you miss the obvious.   1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time.
> 
> Is that "plenty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  When it's backed by 333 other Fighters.  The US can bring more than 1000 fighters to the table at any time of day in a matter of a day or two.  The US has the absolute largest Air Wing (AF, Navy, Marines, Army) in the world.  In fact (can't prove this) the US can field more Air Wing at any time and any place more than the rest of the world combined.
Click to expand...


Can the U.S. bring "1,000 fighters" to three or four tables at once and maintain them in combat for at minimum several months?


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role.   We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers.  I think 1000 is plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you miss the obvious.   1,000 combat aircraft actually means about 333 give or take will be available for combat at any given time.
> 
> Is that "plenty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  When it's backed by 333 other Fighters.  The US can bring more than 1000 fighters to the table at any time of day in a matter of a day or two.  The US has the absolute largest Air Wing (AF, Navy, Marines, Army) in the world.  In fact (can't prove this) the US can field more Air Wing at any time and any place more than the rest of the world combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can the U.S. bring "1,000 fighters" to three or four tables at once and maintain them in combat for at minimum several months?
Click to expand...


They don't have to.  But they can bring at least 500 to all 4 objectives.  And that is just the AF.  Now add in the Navy and Marines.  There are more than 1000 F-16s alone in the inventory.  Add the F-15s and F-22 plus the F-35 and A/F-18.  You can look up the actual numbers as well as I can.


----------



## Silver Cat

Vrenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic design had to be compromised to get all the features the various militaries wanted.   It's a jack of all trades aircraft, master of none, in an increasingly deadly airspace where mastery wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the F-35 was never intended to be a world beating aircraft in ANY role.     The U.S. intended that its F-22s would seize control over contested air space and that then the F-35s would come in and make ground attack missions and mop up any left over enemy fighters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  And that is a mistake.  The aviation world is becoming ever more specialized.   Ignoring that is a fatal mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hence the next gen fighters for the AF and USN going back to the Air Superiority role.   We don't need more Assault Fighters with the F-35 being in large numbers.  I think 1000 is plenty.
Click to expand...

Large numbers? A bit more than 600 both for the USA and their allies . And the decision about it's  full-rate production is still on hold.








						Pentagon Keeps $398 Billion F-35’s Full-Rate Production on Hold
					

The Pentagon has put a decision on approving full-rate production of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 on indefinite hold, as officials remain unable to say when the fighter jet will be ready for combat testing that’s been delayed repeatedly since 2017.




					www.bloomberg.com
				



And two hundred of pre-attack American F-35s, means less than one hundred of survivors, who have to act in the strange post-attack environment, highly likely - with the serious problems with Command and Control, problems with supply, without com, nav and recon sats, and against well-prepared Russian and/or Chinese forces.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
Click to expand...

There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.  After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
Click to expand...

No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it. 





And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be. 



> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.


There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace). 
Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change. 

Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"? 

Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".


----------



## Silver Cat

Say nothing about that stupid conception of RLOAD (Retaliatory Launch Only After Detonation), which seems to be very attractive to the Democrats and other enemies of the USA. 


			https://armscontrol.ru/pubs/en/change-low.pdf


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
Click to expand...

A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.  With modern sensors "preemptive war" is impossible.  One side will have warning seconds after the other launches.


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
Click to expand...

Why they should? 
It's people who feeds the government. 



> With modern sensors "preemptive war" is impossible.  One side will have warning seconds after the other launches.


Seconds? May be even minutes. But it is insufficient to Launch Under Attack. Especially with the Russian hackers freely working in the American military nets, and Sleepy Joe as the President.


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
Click to expand...

-------
Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.








						Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
					

Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.




					t.co
				



---------
Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.


----------



## Silver Cat

Ok. There is another opinion why the US Air Force needs cheap and effective 4.5 generation bomber-fighters (descendants of F-16 and F-15) rather than expensive and ineffective lame ducks like F-35. 








						The Air Force May Build a 4.5-Generation Fighter Jet to Replace the F-16
					

This wasn't supposed to happen.




					www.popularmechanics.com
				




As for me - F-36 must be able to launch AAM LRs, and effectively use cheap unguided bombs.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
Click to expand...

Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.
Click to expand...

Highly depends on definitions. For example, the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, therefore any Earth state may be named as the third world state.
But it does not matter. The USA have to detter Russia - therefore the USA needs long  range fighters-interceptors (with AAM LR NWs) for the nuclear war, the USA must fight local wars for achieving economical success , therefore the US Air Force needs cheap and economically effective "anti-militant" bombers. 
F-35 is nothing of this.


----------



## 22lcidw

Silver Cat said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on definitions. For example, the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, therefore any Earth state may be named as the third world state.
> But it does not matter. The USA have to detter Russia - therefore the USA needs long  range fighters-interceptors (with AAM LR NWs) for the nuclear war, the USA must fight local wars for achieving economical success , therefore the US Air Force needs cheap and economically effective "anti-militant" bombers.
> F-35 is nothing of this.
Click to expand...

A few years a go there was an idea to build fighter aircraft for local wars using propellers as an economical way to assist the aircraft using jet propulsion.


----------



## Vrenn

22lcidw said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on definitions. For example, the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, therefore any Earth state may be named as the third world state.
> But it does not matter. The USA have to detter Russia - therefore the USA needs long  range fighters-interceptors (with AAM LR NWs) for the nuclear war, the USA must fight local wars for achieving economical success , therefore the US Air Force needs cheap and economically effective "anti-militant" bombers.
> F-35 is nothing of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few years a go there was an idea to build fighter aircraft for local wars using propellers as an economical way to assist the aircraft using jet propulsion.
Click to expand...


It's not an out of date idea.   Hence the AT-6 and the A-29.  Both are quite deadly in a non contested theater like the Middle East.  And they do it for a fraction of the cost of even an A-10.  And, Gawd Forbid if you total up a F-35.  The AF bought the AT-6 to go with the T-6.  The AT-6 has the advantage of being as fast as an A-10 but it can slow way down and escort slow moving Rescue Choppers when it needs to.  Plus, the range and loiter time is many times that of the A-10 which is flying that mission right now.  Both the Navy (A-29) and the AF (AT-6) misses the A-1 or the AD very badly.  When Vietnam ended, it was never replaced.


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on definitions. For example, the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, therefore any Earth state may be named as the third world state.
> But it does not matter. The USA have to detter Russia - therefore the USA needs long  range fighters-interceptors (with AAM LR NWs) for the nuclear war, the USA must fight local wars for achieving economical success , therefore the US Air Force needs cheap and economically effective "anti-militant" bombers.
> F-35 is nothing of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few years a go there was an idea to build fighter aircraft for local wars using propellers as an economical way to assist the aircraft using jet propulsion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an out of date idea.   Hence the AT-6 and the A-29.  Both are quite deadly in a non contested theater like the Middle East.  And they do it for a fraction of the cost of even an A-10.  And, Gawd Forbid if you total up a F-35.  The AF bought the AT-6 to go with the T-6.  The AT-6 has the advantage of being as fast as an A-10 but it can slow way down and escort slow moving Rescue Choppers when it needs to.  Plus, the range and loiter time is many times that of the A-10 which is flying that mission right now.  Both the Navy (A-29) and the AF (AT-6) misses the A-1 or the AD very badly.  When Vietnam ended, it was never replaced.
Click to expand...


The A-10 was fully intended to replace the A-1 Skyraider.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on definitions. For example, the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, therefore any Earth state may be named as the third world state.
> But it does not matter. The USA have to detter Russia - therefore the USA needs long  range fighters-interceptors (with AAM LR NWs) for the nuclear war, the USA must fight local wars for achieving economical success , therefore the US Air Force needs cheap and economically effective "anti-militant" bombers.
> F-35 is nothing of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few years a go there was an idea to build fighter aircraft for local wars using propellers as an economical way to assist the aircraft using jet propulsion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an out of date idea.   Hence the AT-6 and the A-29.  Both are quite deadly in a non contested theater like the Middle East.  And they do it for a fraction of the cost of even an A-10.  And, Gawd Forbid if you total up a F-35.  The AF bought the AT-6 to go with the T-6.  The AT-6 has the advantage of being as fast as an A-10 but it can slow way down and escort slow moving Rescue Choppers when it needs to.  Plus, the range and loiter time is many times that of the A-10 which is flying that mission right now.  Both the Navy (A-29) and the AF (AT-6) misses the A-1 or the AD very badly.  When Vietnam ended, it was never replaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-10 was fully intended to replace the A-1 Skyraider.
Click to expand...


And it never really did.  It always lacked the range.  An A-1 had enough range to do a 4 hour loiter time if need be after flying a few hundred miles to it's target.  It was slow enough to fly ahead of the Rescue Choppers, help subdue the area allowing the Choppers come in and do their pickup for downed pilots.  If you ever watched a flight of A-1s operate, it was like a flight of angry Hornets or pissed Bees.  It was the only Piston Attack Plane introduced into service during the Jet Age because we lost the ability when so many P-47s and P-38s were removed from service and the P-51 was inadequate.  Although the F-4U still did an adequate job in Korea.  

The AF never did really like the A-10.  Then again, the AF never was a big fan of ground attack like the Marines were.  But the AF had the A-7E that did a great job, much better than the A-10.  And could defend itself against enemy fighters push comes to shove.  The A-10 has always been a one trick pony.  It's underpowered, doesn't carry much gas, has to trade fuel for range or loiter time or munitions load.  It ends up really having a combat radius of only about 150 miles of useful range giving it an hour loiter time.  The A-1 could fly at least 300 miles, have a full munitions load, do a 4 hour loiter time and still get home.  Both AC were tougher than nails but the A-1 came back with tree limbs in it's cowling and missing parts all the time.  

The A-10's mission never came to fruition.  The original mission was to take out heavy armor in Europe going against the Warsaw Pact.  That never happened.  Especially when the Heavy Armor's avionics reached a point where the A-10 had a pretty poor chance of surviving the attack in a contested Battle Front.  So they changed to another series of missions that it could do.  The one mission it could do was ground suppression in uncontested fronts.  Is it effective?  Ask the British who went through an attack by an A-10.  Oh, it's effective, you bet.  Forget about all the other ordinance it carries (almost every other fighter can carry that) but the one strafing run with that friggin gun was murderous.  Oops.

The A-10 took over the mission that was supposed to go to the AC-130 which does it much better and with much more control and safety.  The AC-130 would have never taken those shots.  The AC would have identified that it was friendlies and moved on.  But had it not been friendlies, the AC would have spent less than a minute and wasted the whole convoy and every person even the fleeing ones.  

Now for fire suppression. The A-10 makes passes which puts the heads down.  The AC takes their heads off even under cover.  The A-10 can make a mistake and hit friendly forces when operating too  close.  The AC can fire with a couple of meters from friendly forces.  The A-10 can only make a few passes.  The AC is there until the job is done.  Remember, the first shots fired by the US for DSII was done by an AC-130 clearing the way for a unit of Special Forces.  The AC had to loiter there, already have the targets picked out and wait for the go.  

With the introduction of the AT-6 into the AF, the A-10 really is just millions a year of dead weight since they have expanded the AC-130 fleet.  Notice, the F-35 doesn't even become part of this equation.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vrenn said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on definitions. For example, the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, therefore any Earth state may be named as the third world state.
> But it does not matter. The USA have to detter Russia - therefore the USA needs long  range fighters-interceptors (with AAM LR NWs) for the nuclear war, the USA must fight local wars for achieving economical success , therefore the US Air Force needs cheap and economically effective "anti-militant" bombers.
> F-35 is nothing of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few years a go there was an idea to build fighter aircraft for local wars using propellers as an economical way to assist the aircraft using jet propulsion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an out of date idea.   Hence the AT-6 and the A-29.  Both are quite deadly in a non contested theater like the Middle East.  And they do it for a fraction of the cost of even an A-10.  And, Gawd Forbid if you total up a F-35.  The AF bought the AT-6 to go with the T-6.  The AT-6 has the advantage of being as fast as an A-10 but it can slow way down and escort slow moving Rescue Choppers when it needs to.  Plus, the range and loiter time is many times that of the A-10 which is flying that mission right now.  Both the Navy (A-29) and the AF (AT-6) misses the A-1 or the AD very badly.  When Vietnam ended, it was never replaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-10 was fully intended to replace the A-1 Skyraider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it never really did.  It always lacked the range.  An A-1 had enough range to do a 4 hour loiter time if need be after flying a few hundred miles to it's target.  It was slow enough to fly ahead of the Rescue Choppers, help subdue the area allowing the Choppers come in and do their pickup for downed pilots.  If you ever watched a flight of A-1s operate, it was like a flight of angry Hornets or pissed Bees.  It was the only Piston Attack Plane introduced into service during the Jet Age because we lost the ability when so many P-47s and P-38s were removed from service and the P-51 was inadequate.  Although the F-4U still did an adequate job in Korea.
> 
> The AF never did really like the A-10.  Then again, the AF never was a big fan of ground attack like the Marines were.  But the AF had the A-7E that did a great job, much better than the A-10.  And could defend itself against enemy fighters push comes to shove.  The A-10 has always been a one trick pony.  It's underpowered, doesn't carry much gas, has to trade fuel for range or loiter time or munitions load.  It ends up really having a combat radius of only about 150 miles of useful range giving it an hour loiter time.  The A-1 could fly at least 300 miles, have a full munitions load, do a 4 hour loiter time and still get home.  Both AC were tougher than nails but the A-1 came back with tree limbs in it's cowling and missing parts all the time.
> 
> The A-10's mission never came to fruition.  The original mission was to take out heavy armor in Europe going against the Warsaw Pact.  That never happened.  Especially when the Heavy Armor's avionics reached a point where the A-10 had a pretty poor chance of surviving the attack in a contested Battle Front.  So they changed to another series of missions that it could do.  The one mission it could do was ground suppression in uncontested fronts.  Is it effective?  Ask the British who went through an attack by an A-10.  Oh, it's effective, you bet.  Forget about all the other ordinance it carries (almost every other fighter can carry that) but the one strafing run with that friggin gun was murderous.  Oops.
> 
> The A-10 took over the mission that was supposed to go to the AC-130 which does it much better and with much more control and safety.  The AC-130 would have never taken those shots.  The AC would have identified that it was friendlies and moved on.  But had it not been friendlies, the AC would have spent less than a minute and wasted the whole convoy and every person even the fleeing ones.
> 
> Now for fire suppression. The A-10 makes passes which puts the heads down.  The AC takes their heads off even under cover.  The A-10 can make a mistake and hit friendly forces when operating too  close.  The AC can fire with a couple of meters from friendly forces.  The A-10 can only make a few passes.  The AC is there until the job is done.  Remember, the first shots fired by the US for DSII was done by an AC-130 clearing the way for a unit of Special Forces.  The AC had to loiter there, already have the targets picked out and wait for the go.
> 
> With the introduction of the AT-6 into the AF, the A-10 really is just millions a year of dead weight since they have expanded the AC-130 fleet.  Notice, the F-35 doesn't even become part of this equation.
Click to expand...

The AC130 can only operate when both enemy fighters and AAA have been totally suppressed.  It's a big, slow, vulnerable target.  The A-10 is survivable and can operate without AAA being suppressed.  It's designed to take damage and bring it's pilot home.


----------



## Vrenn

AZrailwhale said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, both sides will come to their senses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's say they don't.  The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes.  And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike.  That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won't  win but Russia will lose even worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the Naval Assets.  And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted.  As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a no win situation for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible.  Not even close.  They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria.  They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange?  While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age.  But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war,  important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine?  Nope.  They have the manpower.  They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now.  The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels.  Sacrifical  Lambs.  Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't  working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Oh, man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine.  That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans.  Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return.  If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
> Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could  tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly  repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start  a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.
> 
> What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one problem with your scenario, when you launch, the USA is going to flush every silo and launch every bomber before your counterforce strike can land.  It's called use it or lose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's called "Launch under attack" and it was not very reliable plan even in the better times. Many modern American "strategists" (especially the Democrats) more concerned with the "prevention" of the war, than with winning it.
> 
> View attachment 467456
> 
> And anyway, it can be tricked out, especially if the US Administration and high military and intelligent stuff will be incompetent and self-confident as they accustomed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After those massive US strikes land, whomever is in charge of the US forces at that point will evaluate what targets remain in Russia and use submarine launched missiles to kill them.  There will be no winner in that scenario, just survivors of the nuclear winter that follows and since all of Russia is north and cold already, there won't be many survivors for the Chinese to kill when their survivors invade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no "winners" in the exchanging of strikes, one can only "prevail" in it. And yes, if the one side is really ready, and another is not, the side which demonstrate better readiness - will "prevail" in the battle, and may even win the war (and write conditions of peace).
> Then, "nuclear winter" is false-scientific crap, at least because it absolutely ignore emission of CO_2 and H_2O during those fires. In the matter of fact, nobody has reliable climate models even to calculate changes of the climate in the "normal" situation. But if the one side has Ministry of Reserves and another has not, if one side has rich and defenseless neighbors (like China and EU), and another side - has not, then, of course, one side can prevail after unpredictable climate change.
> 
> Yes, of course, victory can be very expensive, but the war will be finished someday, and there will be winners and losers in it. And as you said it is unsafe to allow somebody (like China or EU) remain neutral in this shooting party. That's why, very likely, the nuclear war will be World War III - the war not only between the USA and Russia, but between large military blocks. Say, between NATO+ and Shanghai Pact+. Therefore you need to divide, say, two thousands of "countervalue" warheads to two millions of cities and towns in the world. One bomb for one thousand of cities. Does it still sounds like a "Total Nuclear Annihilation" and "Assured Mutual Destruction"?
> 
> Anyway, I don't say, that the nuclear war (or even conventional or cold war) can be profitable. I say, that "preemptive war" is much more safer than "uncontrolled escalation" and "losing initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "Ministry of Reserves" for a government that can't feed it's own people under the best circumstances is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------
> Benefit of sanctions? Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, last year. It's the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benefit of sanctions & isolation? Covid-19 pandemic was 1st time Russian GDP survived economic crisis better than global average
> 
> 
> Leading Moscow academics have revealed that Russia's GDP dropped less than the world as a whole during the Covid-19 pandemic, marking the first time the country weathered an economic crisis better than the global average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------
> Russia is structurally different. 80%+ home ownership, free health care with 24/7 ambulance and doctor (even for a sniffle), incredible price parity - Big Mac $2, $US 500 billion in bank, pensions rivaling western countries, subsidised municipal travel, 20 free TV channels,
> children in school 12 hrs a day with meals from the age of one for a small fee, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia is a failed state/kleptocracy.  It went right from third world dictatorship to corrupt kleptocracy in one fell swoop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly depends on definitions. For example, the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, therefore any Earth state may be named as the third world state.
> But it does not matter. The USA have to detter Russia - therefore the USA needs long  range fighters-interceptors (with AAM LR NWs) for the nuclear war, the USA must fight local wars for achieving economical success , therefore the US Air Force needs cheap and economically effective "anti-militant" bombers.
> F-35 is nothing of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few years a go there was an idea to build fighter aircraft for local wars using propellers as an economical way to assist the aircraft using jet propulsion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an out of date idea.   Hence the AT-6 and the A-29.  Both are quite deadly in a non contested theater like the Middle East.  And they do it for a fraction of the cost of even an A-10.  And, Gawd Forbid if you total up a F-35.  The AF bought the AT-6 to go with the T-6.  The AT-6 has the advantage of being as fast as an A-10 but it can slow way down and escort slow moving Rescue Choppers when it needs to.  Plus, the range and loiter time is many times that of the A-10 which is flying that mission right now.  Both the Navy (A-29) and the AF (AT-6) misses the A-1 or the AD very badly.  When Vietnam ended, it was never replaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-10 was fully intended to replace the A-1 Skyraider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it never really did.  It always lacked the range.  An A-1 had enough range to do a 4 hour loiter time if need be after flying a few hundred miles to it's target.  It was slow enough to fly ahead of the Rescue Choppers, help subdue the area allowing the Choppers come in and do their pickup for downed pilots.  If you ever watched a flight of A-1s operate, it was like a flight of angry Hornets or pissed Bees.  It was the only Piston Attack Plane introduced into service during the Jet Age because we lost the ability when so many P-47s and P-38s were removed from service and the P-51 was inadequate.  Although the F-4U still did an adequate job in Korea.
> 
> The AF never did really like the A-10.  Then again, the AF never was a big fan of ground attack like the Marines were.  But the AF had the A-7E that did a great job, much better than the A-10.  And could defend itself against enemy fighters push comes to shove.  The A-10 has always been a one trick pony.  It's underpowered, doesn't carry much gas, has to trade fuel for range or loiter time or munitions load.  It ends up really having a combat radius of only about 150 miles of useful range giving it an hour loiter time.  The A-1 could fly at least 300 miles, have a full munitions load, do a 4 hour loiter time and still get home.  Both AC were tougher than nails but the A-1 came back with tree limbs in it's cowling and missing parts all the time.
> 
> The A-10's mission never came to fruition.  The original mission was to take out heavy armor in Europe going against the Warsaw Pact.  That never happened.  Especially when the Heavy Armor's avionics reached a point where the A-10 had a pretty poor chance of surviving the attack in a contested Battle Front.  So they changed to another series of missions that it could do.  The one mission it could do was ground suppression in uncontested fronts.  Is it effective?  Ask the British who went through an attack by an A-10.  Oh, it's effective, you bet.  Forget about all the other ordinance it carries (almost every other fighter can carry that) but the one strafing run with that friggin gun was murderous.  Oops.
> 
> The A-10 took over the mission that was supposed to go to the AC-130 which does it much better and with much more control and safety.  The AC-130 would have never taken those shots.  The AC would have identified that it was friendlies and moved on.  But had it not been friendlies, the AC would have spent less than a minute and wasted the whole convoy and every person even the fleeing ones.
> 
> Now for fire suppression. The A-10 makes passes which puts the heads down.  The AC takes their heads off even under cover.  The A-10 can make a mistake and hit friendly forces when operating too  close.  The AC can fire with a couple of meters from friendly forces.  The A-10 can only make a few passes.  The AC is there until the job is done.  Remember, the first shots fired by the US for DSII was done by an AC-130 clearing the way for a unit of Special Forces.  The AC had to loiter there, already have the targets picked out and wait for the go.
> 
> With the introduction of the AT-6 into the AF, the A-10 really is just millions a year of dead weight since they have expanded the AC-130 fleet.  Notice, the F-35 doesn't even become part of this equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The AC130 can only operate when both enemy fighters and AAA have been totally suppressed.  It's a big, slow, vulnerable target.  The A-10 is survivable and can operate without AAA being suppressed.  It's designed to take damage and bring it's pilot home.
Click to expand...


No, the A-10 can no longer operate in a contested area.  In order for it to operate, that AAA is going to have to be taken out at a distance.  And the AC can operate above the AAA ceiling.  When I was with the AC, we had to operate at about 10K which was well inside the AAA ceiling but today's AC can operate at 30K which is well above the AAA ceiling.  Same goes for Manpads.  The A-10 below a certain altitude stands out like a barn door on fire.  But SAMS are another story and neither can survive with those being active.  If AAA and Manpads are present then even the A-10 is going to resort to long ranged weapons.  If SAMS are present, leave that to the F-16s, F-18s and F-15Es and now the F-35s and F-22s along with the heavy bombers.  Something with some very long ranged weapons and jamming ability.  

It's gotten to the point now where even the 
F-16 is having problems in Syria.  That's why the F-15E and the new F-15EX comes into play.  If they are having trouble, the A-10 will go poof.


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> No, the A-10 can no longer operate in a contested area.  In order for it to operate, that AAA is going to have to be taken out at a distance.  And the AC can operate above the AAA ceiling.  When I was with the AC, we had to operate at about 10K which was well inside the AAA ceiling but today's AC can operate at 30K which is well above the AAA ceiling.  Same goes for Manpads.  The A-10 below a certain altitude stands out like a barn door on fire.  But SAMS are another story and neither can survive with those being active.  If AAA and Manpads are present then even the A-10 is going to resort to long ranged weapons.  If SAMS are present, leave that to the F-16s, F-18s and F-15Es and now the F-35s and F-22s along with the heavy bombers.  Something with some very long ranged weapons and jamming ability.
> 
> It's gotten to the point now where even the
> F-16 is having problems in Syria.  That's why the F-15E and the new F-15EX comes into play.  If they are having trouble, the A-10 will go poof.



In the past,  A-10s have survived being hit by SAMs both large and small.
And AC-130s are not going to hit anything on the ground from 30,000 feet.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> Vrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the A-10 can no longer operate in a contested area.  In order for it to operate, that AAA is going to have to be taken out at a distance.  And the AC can operate above the AAA ceiling.  When I was with the AC, we had to operate at about 10K which was well inside the AAA ceiling but today's AC can operate at 30K which is well above the AAA ceiling.  Same goes for Manpads.  The A-10 below a certain altitude stands out like a barn door on fire.  But SAMS are another story and neither can survive with those being active.  If AAA and Manpads are present then even the A-10 is going to resort to long ranged weapons.  If SAMS are present, leave that to the F-16s, F-18s and F-15Es and now the F-35s and F-22s along with the heavy bombers.  Something with some very long ranged weapons and jamming ability.
> 
> It's gotten to the point now where even the
> F-16 is having problems in Syria.  That's why the F-15E and the new F-15EX comes into play.  If they are having trouble, the A-10 will go poof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the past,  A-10s have survived being hit by SAMs both large and small.
> And AC-130s are not going to hit anything on the ground from 30,000 feet.
Click to expand...


You are incorrect.  The AC can hit very accurately at 30K.  It normally operates at 20K but push comes to shove, the 30K can be done.  The reason we operated at 10K wasn't because the guns couldn't kill at a higher alititude it was because the bird wasn't pressurized and the main part of the crew could not operate wearing oxy rigs.  Our 20mms had an effective range of over 12,000 feet, 40mm Bofars had a range of over 23,000 feet and that 105 had a range of almost 60,000 feet maximum range. 

The new canons on the AC-130U and W have this type of range
25mm 2.3 miles but you are shooting down so it's a lot further.  The 25 is being or already has been removed from service.
30mm range right around 20,000 feet when shot horizontally.  But fired in a downward angle it's much further
105mm still has that long range of 60,000 feet
GBU-39 Smart Bomb which has a very long range.  It can be dropped from 30K accurately
AGM-176 Griffin *missile* range of 5 miles when used from the air

The AC-130J can read your name tag from 30K and come within a couple of feet of hitting it.  And he's using a shotgun approach unless he's  dropping his bombs or shooting his missiles.  While the AC-130J may not normally operate at 30K and will probably be between 20 and 25K in operation to get the best use of all it's weapons, it does the the option to go higher if the threat calls for it.

The AC-130J ain't it's Grand Daddy AC-130A.

And NO A-10 has survived a direct hit from a SAM.  Nothing short of a Buff can withstand something like that.  Near Misses still throw a lot of shrapnel and removes aircraft parts.  Even the AC can't take a direct SAM hit.  We lost a few to those things.


----------



## Silver Cat

Nice article. 









						A US Air Force war game shows what the service needs to hold off — or win against — China in 2030
					

American officials talked about the classified war game’s results with Defense News, just months before the service planned to release its fiscal 2022 budget.




					www.defensenews.com
				





“We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35,” Hinote said. “It wouldn’t be worth it. … Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios.”


----------



## jbander

Mushroom said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean the Harrier (AV8B), not the Osprey (OV-22).
> 
> And I for one have long recognized that the first run of just about any military equipment does not perform exactly as advertised.  The M-16 was not reliable until the A1, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers were not really world class until the last of the first gens were launched, and the F-18 was originally rejected by the Navy, only being accepted after many years of upgrades and modifications.
> 
> And yes, a replacement for the Harrier is badly needed.  An upgrade of the Vietnam era Harrier, even the youngest Marine Harrier II is over a decade old, and it is time to start seriously working on their replacement.
> 
> And yes, it is still needed.  For a Marine Amphibious Force, this is often their only air to air defense when they are separated from a Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> I have worked with a great many pieces of equipment in the military over the years, and it had always gone through many modifications, so that it barely resembled the original models.  And if somebody has a good eye, they can spot them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a First Generation PATRIOT Missile launcher, a piece of equipment I am very familiar with.  That one happens to be a the museum at the White Sands Missile Range (where I have inspected it in detail).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is a PAC III 3rd generation launcher.  I can spot at least 7 differences in a 1 second glance to tell one from the other.  Could the original shoot down an inbound ballistic missile?  No.  Could the original be rapidly emplaced with the entire Battery ready to fight in less then an hour?  No.  Was it able to do it's original job and shoot down enemy aircraft within 2 hours?  Yes.
> 
> In short, I do not see this as a boondoggle.  I simply see it as a program that is badly needed, to replace equipment that is dangerously close to the end of it's lifespan.
Click to expand...

Agreed, These growing pains are normal.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Today's F-35As Not Worth Including In High-End War Games According To Air Force General (thedrive.com)


----------



## Silver Cat

GAO report about F-35 concludes its current sustainment costs make the aircraft unaffordable. And mission capable rates are well below requirement: In 2020, full mission capable rate was 54%, nearly 20% below 72% goal.


----------



## Dayton3

Silver Cat said:


> GAO report about F-35 concludes its current sustainment costs make the aircraft unaffordable. And mission capable rates are well below requirement: In 2020, full mission capable rate was 54%, nearly 20% below 72% goal.



During the early 1980s,  American fighters like F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-4s routinely averaged a mission capable rate in the low 50% range. 

Though that isn't all it appears to be.


----------



## Esdraelon

I hear it's hard to kill something you can't see.


----------



## Dayton3

ESDRAELON said:


> I hear it's hard to kill something you can't see.



The F-35 has never been remotely as stealthy as dedicated stealth attack aircraft.   Or the F-22.


----------



## Silver Cat

Ok. Looks like, that F-35 is not a lame duck. It's a cuckoo in the fixed-wing's nest.


----------



## Uncensored2008

I'll be seeing one fly later today at the Huntington Beach Air Show





__





						Pacific Airshow 2021 in Huntington Beach: Closer look at the amazing aircraft
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dayton3 said:


> The F-35 has never been remotely as stealthy as dedicated stealth attack aircraft.   Or the F-22.



1922 is over. The warfighter of today is a sophisticated weapons platform. The F35 is that craft.


----------



## jbander

Dayton3 said:


> The F-35 has never been remotely as stealthy as dedicated stealth attack aircraft.   Or the F-22.


The only thing that matters is if you see them before they see you. If you out stealth their system you win.


----------



## Vrenn

jbander said:


> The only thing that matters is if you see them before they see you. If you out stealth their system you win.



And with the release of Mod4 allowing the F-35 to sustain 9+ Gees that is beyond what a pilot can maintain,  it now out flies both the F-18 and F-16 in a dogfight.  Both of those fighters would have to  go   completely  clean to equal the F-35 in a gun to gun dogfight but the F-35 will still be armed with a gun and couple of Aim-9xs.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> And with the release of Mod4 allowing the F-35 to sustain 9+ Gees that is beyond what a pilot can maintain,  it now out flies both the F-18 and F-16 in a dogfight.  Both of those fighters would have to  go   completely  clean to equal the F-35 in a gun to gun dogfight but the F-35 will still be armed with a gun and couple of Aim-9xs.







Ummmm, wrong.


In designing the F-16, advanced aerospace science and proven reliable systems from other aircraft such as the F-15 and F-111 were selected. These were combined to simplify the airplane and reduce its size, purchase price, maintenance costs and weight. The light weight of the fuselage is achieved without reducing its strength. With a full load of internal fuel, the F-16 can withstand up to nine G's -- nine times the force of gravity -- which exceeds the capability of other current fighter aircraft.









						F-16 Fighting Falcon
					

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost,



					www.af.mil


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Ummmm, wrong.
> 
> 
> In designing the F-16, advanced aerospace science and proven reliable systems from other aircraft such as the F-15 and F-111 were selected. These were combined to simplify the airplane and reduce its size, purchase price, maintenance costs and weight. The light weight of the fuselage is achieved without reducing its strength. With a full load of internal fuel, the F-16 can withstand up to nine G's -- nine times the force of gravity -- which exceeds the capability of other current fighter aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F-16 Fighting Falcon
> 
> 
> The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost,
> 
> 
> 
> www.af.mil



And the F-35A was designed to equal a  clean F-16.  The F-35A also    can sustain 9+ Gees but the pilot can sustain those kind of Gees for only a few seconds.  After that, the pilot drops to about 7.5 Gees.  The original F-16A was strictly an Air to Air.  It didn't even  carry radar guided missiles.  What you  believe as the original F-16 took it as  couple of decades to obtain.


----------



## westwall

Vrenn said:


> And the F-35A was designed to equal a  clean F-16.  The F-35A also    can sustain 9+ Gees but the pilot can sustain those kind of Gees for only a few seconds.  After that, the pilot drops to about 7.5 Gees.  The original F-16A was strictly an Air to Air.  It didn't even  carry radar guided missiles.  What you  believe as the original F-16 took it as  couple of decades to obtain.






Look at the link, the F-16 DIRTY, can pull 9G.


----------



## justinacolmena

longknife said:


> It is a very serious problem.
> 
> Military procurement bureaucrats listened to generals who wanted too much for too little. They wanted a stealth version of the Osprey that could do the VTOL stuff while flying at Mach+ speeds carrying a huge variety of armaments and payloads.
> 
> They got what they should've expected.


There's too much Top Secret clearance and fraternization among the software programmers who design the controls for those planes.
Which means there's almost undoubtedly a Chinese/Israeli remote kill embedded somewhere in the flight control software. There's too much clearance and the whole fiasco with the federal Office of Personnel Management leaking detailed government employee records from a SAP database while Katherine Archuleta was in charge of that department during the Obama administration.


----------



## Vrenn

westwall said:


> Look at the link, the F-16 DIRTY, can pull 9G.


Never said it couldn't.  Hang 2 Aim-9s on it and I would think that it  could.  But hang 6 missiles and a center drop tank which   brings up to the same weapon load as the F-35A and you drop all the way down to a out 7.5 unless you are trying to invent the folding wing Lawn Dart.


----------



## Dayton3

The ability to pull large amounts of G forces is a badly overrated and unimportant capability.

The only U.S. aircraft shot down by an enemy aircraft in the last 50 years was in Desert Storm when an F/A-18 was downed by a Mig-25 Foxbat which can pull only something like 3.5 Gs.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> The ability to pull large amounts of G forces is a badly overrated and unimportant capability.
> 
> The only U.S. aircraft shot down by an enemy aircraft in the last 50 years was in Desert Storm when an F/A-18 was downed by a Mig-25 Foxbat which can pull only something like 3.5 Gs.



Actually, the max rating is 4.5Gs.  That is with all 3 external fuel tanks which is the way the 25 normally operates.  It's  been recorded clean at over 11g.   But that included a serious NDI right after that.


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> Actually, the max rating is 4.5Gs.  That is with all 3 external fuel tanks which is the way the 25 normally operates.  It's  been recorded clean at over 11g.   But that included a serious NDI right after that.



What good is a Mig-25 "clean"?    Because "clean" means its unarmed.


----------



## Vrenn

Dayton3 said:


> What good is a Mig-25 "clean"?    Because "clean" means its unarmed.



The 25  carried missiles that most fighters  couldn't even get off the ground with at the time.  And it flew with drop tanks which it would disgard quickly.  Clean, to it, was when the drop tanks and half the missiles were dropped.  The fact that the F-35 flies as clean with it's internal load and fuel as a F-16 is with no missiles and drop tanks.    But under that   condition, the F-35A can pull 9+ Gs, and has the same lethality + as the F-16 fully loaded which will  be limited to 7Gees.

The fact remains, the only real threat to a F-35A is the F-22.


----------



## Dayton3

Vrenn said:


> The fact remains, the only real threat to a F-35A is the F-22.



I never disagreed with that.


----------



## jbander

F35 and 22 aren't designed to go nose to nose with any plane. My perception at this point it would never have to. That may change but it will be quite a bit further down the line.


----------



## Vrenn

jbander said:


> F35 and 22 aren't designed to go nose to nose with any plane. My perception at this point it would never have to. That may change but it will be quite a bit further down the line.



The 22 was and is designed to go head go head as well as standoff.  Nothing   can take it right save a lucky 35 on a   very good day.

The enemy hopes to get close to the 35  but up   close, it's good enough and you have to live through the extreme off  boresight of the 35 and the Aim9X.  So you may or not get one    chance.


----------



## jbander

Vrenn said:


> The 22 was and is designed to go head go head as well as standoff.  Nothing   can take it right save a lucky 35 on a   very good day.
> 
> The enemy hopes to get close to the 35  but up   close, it's good enough and you have to live through the extreme off  boresight of the 35 and the Aim9X.  So you may or not get one    chance.


As of now they won't see either one of them and there is nothing out there that they won't see.


----------



## Vrenn

jbander said:


> As of now they won't see either one of them and there is nothing out there that they won't see.


----------



## jbander

Vrenn said:


>


Funny!


----------

