Turkish F-16s shot down a Russian strike aircraft near the Syria-Turkey border.
I wonder if tjc has any doomsday prepper advice?
I wonder if tjc has any doomsday prepper advice?
Cold War II
- Thread starter TheFoyeEffect
- Start date
The video clips that have come out on the internet are pretty legit. Looks like both pilots ejected but one died on the way down.
Sounds like a familiar situation.
Sounds like a familiar situation.
There's also reports that the Free Syrian Army (armed by us) shot down a helicopter with a TOW missile.
& Iran still had F14 tomcats
..Does the avg American get that Turkey has been buying oil from Isis & arming & sheltering them?
..Does the avg American get that Turkey has been buying oil from Isis & arming & sheltering them?
So does Venezuela, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, the UAE, and Morocco. Who cares, the F-16 isn't exactly state of the art. They started building them in 1976.
right on. I'd just as soon say f--- Turkey if we didn't need the close access to the badder guys they provide. Like Saudi Arabia in that regard. Its populace gets more radical by the day. If Russia decided to hit the reset button across large swaths of Turkey and Syria and got our ok might not be the worst thing.
The video clips that have come out on the internet are pretty legit. Looks like both pilots ejected but one died on the way down.
Sounds like a familiar situation.
?
Except for the whole NATO thing. If we disavowed Turkey, Putin would have free reign to bulldoze the Baltic States.
Then you don't care what they do to Germany, France, or the United Kingdom.
They're all NATO members with Article 5 (collective defense) powers.
The F-22s were a hit and a miss. The DoD is moving right past them and into thousands of F-35s. The question is will they actually buy them or will they become obsolete on the drawing board like the F-22.
I understand how the treaty works, but disagree with the first part. Turkey has not been the best partner recently and needs to get its house in order. Treaty or no, all NATO members are not created equal so why pretend otherwise. Would love to see Obama justify sending our troops to war over Turkey, while it is a friend to ISIS.
apples and oranges. F-35s are air-to-ground. F-22's are for air-to-air. each is superior to all other jets in their respective roles. the reason we don't buy more F-22's is they're so superior to our enemy's fighters there is no reason to produce more of them at such an exorbitant cost. we already have enough of them to deal with anything out there today. the F-22 isn't replaced by the F-35. it's a different purpose jet.
This is a myth about the F-22. If anything became obsolete on the drawing board, it's the F-35, which are heavier, less powerful, less stealthy, and far less capable than the Raptor in an aerial engagement. They're also more expensive. It's basically everything that Ike warned about when he gave his military industrial complex speech. If the F-35 isn't a significant upgrade on the F/A-18 and the F-16 in terms of capability, the Pentagon needs to seriously reform how it develops and purchases new platforms. Also, it might need to censure Lockheed Martin.
As for the Raptor, yes it is expensive and yes, stealth isn't as much of an advantage as it used to be, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the most capable fighter jet in the world by a longshot. We also should have bought a lot more of them than we did and a lot fewer F-35s.
Why do we need to be dumping money into fighter aircraft at all? How many sweet drones can you buy for the cost of an F-35 (or an F-22)? I'm not saying abandon them entirely, but I don't think we are at the stage where we need thousands of manned fighter aircraft anymore. That's just me.
Here's a video of a no-fly zone violating Iraqi MiG 25 beating a Predator that tried to shoot it down during Operation Southern Watch.
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
The worst part of the F35 was that it was supposed to be cheap.
Defense analysts looked at increasing aircraft costs, and came up with what they called the 1 airplane problem. It said that costs were increasing so much, that eventually the DoD would only be able to afford 1 plane per year. The initial concept was to make the F35 cheap, upgradeable, and versatile. That's why there are ground based, STOVL and carrier based models. They were going to spread the development costs out over all of the countries that planned on buying them.
Huge surprise, that plan didn't work out.
Defense analysts looked at increasing aircraft costs, and came up with what they called the 1 airplane problem. It said that costs were increasing so much, that eventually the DoD would only be able to afford 1 plane per year. The initial concept was to make the F35 cheap, upgradeable, and versatile. That's why there are ground based, STOVL and carrier based models. They were going to spread the development costs out over all of the countries that planned on buying them.
Huge surprise, that plan didn't work out.
They dont. None of these buffoons knows what they're talking about unless they were IN the military.
A combination of Tom Clancy novels, the military channel, wikipedia, and a couple blogs I read.
Especially after the F-111, where they tried to do the same thing was such a miserable failure.
From what I have read, the another big problem with the Joint Strike Fighter program is the F-35B, the STOVL version. The necessary gadgetry added so much weight to the plane, and for the purposes of manufacturing ease, all three variants had to be retrofitted with all of the stuff necessary for STOVL with the exception of the engine nozzle that allows for vertical landings. So basically, we can blame the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy if the plane sucks.
Because I spend no time educating myself about collar stays, lawn equipment, coffee, obscure indie music, home stereo systems, hookup apps, push presents, and harmony one remotes.
The first part of your statement is true. The second part is off base.
One of the main problems is the politicization of the selection process for the contracts - these large systems are purposely subcontracted across as many congressional districts as possible to attempt to a) win them and b) keep them from getting cancelled.
The art of systems engineering and determining legit/valid operational requirements in a large part has been lost by those responsible for these activities on the govt. side of the equation.
in regards to the two recent ship classes being built - one is built for a 1940s/50s mission and the other is an absurd idea of fitting out a ship for a specific mission prior to a deployment ... the result is a ship with little more capability than ships designed in the 70s. The main reason both these ship classes even were built was because of the perception that the Aegis ship-building infrastructure was too powerful. So at the end of the day the Navy spent trillions to get a couple of shitty naval gunfire support ships and a large number of smaller, less capable ships - when for a fraction of the cost they could have kept building more of the most capable, multi-mission ship ever built. Keep upgrading the best thing instead of reinventing the wheel.
