|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 11, 2009 11:13:55 GMT -5
What did it teach us? The whole point was to have a stealth helicopter. Given the nature of the wars and operations America has fought over the past 20 years or so, surely a stealth helicopter is pointless? I mean, if recent history is any guide it'd only get shot down with an RPG from some guy who conducts his military strategies from a tent, and who has no fucking radar whatsoever. I don't claim to be a military expert, but a stealth helicopter just seems to be like trying to invent the military equivalent of that toaster that burns the weather forecast onto your bread. Also, $800bn works out at roughly £512bn. Pre-recession, the UK government spent around £550bn - and that's on everything. Well, no offece, the UK is a bit smaller than the US
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 12:38:46 GMT -5
Well Iran. Venezuela, Bolivia, North Korea. They're pretty shit scared. Iraq, too. Saudi Arabia. Pretty much everywhere in the middle East actually. Other than Israel. Yes Fred they are shacking in their boots. It is obvious with North Korea testing nuclear weapons, Iran refusal to follow UN resolutions and the leaders of Venezuela going on anti-American rants right in front of our President. They look fucking horrified. The problem is that Kim Jong Il is nutty then that shit house rat. That is because Fred if we leave the country as it is another group like the Taliban will take over. Granted that still may happen, but people are less likely to look to groups like that when they have the infrastructure they need. We had the right to defend our selfs after an attack. To make sure that another attack like 911 could not come from that country again. Now I already stated that it should not have taken 8 years, that was because of the clusterfuck that is Iraq. That does not mean we can just pick up and leave. We do hold some responsibility to the innocent people in Afghanistan. Fred, we don't need a UN resolution to defend this county. Nor does any other member of the UN. Look into the UN rules. We have been through this before.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 12:41:20 GMT -5
Given the nature of the wars and operations America has fought over the past 20 years or so, surely a stealth helicopter is pointless? I mean, if recent history is any guide it'd only get shot down with an RPG from some guy who conducts his military strategies from a tent, and who has no fucking radar whatsoever. I don't claim to be a military expert, but a stealth helicopter just seems to be like trying to invent the military equivalent of that toaster that burns the weather forecast onto your bread. Also, $800bn works out at roughly £512bn. Pre-recession, the UK government spent around £550bn - and that's on everything. I agree that we did not need a stealth helicopter. I said that earlier in the thread. In the quote you had I was just responding to Skys assertion that we got useful tech out of that project.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 12:57:18 GMT -5
Several Mid-East nations have also made it their policy, official or not, to try and take Israel off the map. Before Obama came to power (Obama's policy towards Israel is another matter altogether), US policy was to have Israel's back. So because Obama does not agree with the settlements we no longer have Israel's back? Well as much as I would not want to hurt local economies, to bad. Their is no stratigic reason we need a base their. While I can see the Ports for the Naval operations, and at least one air base. We don't need all of the bases we have. We have 9 air fields and bases in Japan.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 12:59:23 GMT -5
It wasn't that the YF-23 was ill-conceived. Rather, there was a critical flaw with the missile bay door and the payload delivery mechanism. In order to be stealthy, the design had it that the YF-23 had no guns and all missiles were housed in an internal bay. Thing is, the bay doors periodically jammed in one position, and the missile delivery mechanism would sometimes jam as well. With no guns, that left the YF-23 incredibly vulnerable in a fight against other planes; given the bad things that happened with the early, gun-less F-4 model, the Air Force wasn't keen on facing that prospect. Read what I wrote again Sky. I said "except the YF-23".
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jun 11, 2009 13:00:40 GMT -5
Yeah I hate to belittle you here Skyfire but...OBAMA STILL HAS ISRAEL'S BACK!
Ironbite-I mean...jesus fuck do you listen to yourself at times?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 13:11:02 GMT -5
Against what? Are the French gonna invade? No current or forseen threat has anything resembling a modern air wing, let alone a futuristic one that costs millons to produce each plane. the F-22 is and was a money hog, both in testing and would be to build and upkeep when other fighters do the job just fine. The days of dogfighting are fairly past, you don't need manuverabillity to defend or fight back as much as you do capable weapons that can strike first I'm going to defend the F-22. While it was seen as a money hog, it was still a small drop in the bucket in overall military spending. Plus we got something useful out of it. While the French fighter is not risk to even the F-15. There are other fighter planes that very much are. The Sukhoi family of fighter jets from Russia. Starting with the Su-30, Su-35 and in the future the Su-37 ans 47 are all bad ass fighter jets that are all equal or heads above the F-15. While Russia may never use them against us or an ally, they do tend to sell military equipment to other counties. You are right about being able to strike first. The Su's have huge radars and could shoot down both F-15's and F/A-18's well beyond even being detected. The F-22 with it's stealth, well won't be seen and can just sneak up on the Su's.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jun 11, 2009 13:26:37 GMT -5
So because Obama does not agree with the settlements we no longer have Israel's back? No, his stance is something for another thread; not this one. Rammstein is the main jumping-off point for anyone and everyone going through mainland Europe and a primary point for matters involving the Middle East. Landstuhl is the nearest major hospital to where most of the fighting is and thus the hospital of first resort whenever soldiers are seriously wounded and need significant / long-term treatment. Thing is, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces have been historically limited in what they can do; the post-war Japanese constitution restricted their military to within a certain radius of the nation's shore, meaning that from there on out it's up to us and the South Koreans to pick up the slack. On one hand, Japan deploying several medical teams to Iraq can be seen as a dry run for them altering their constitution enough to where they can send soldiers out for peacekeeping. On the other hand, until that day happens we're pretty well obligated to help police the region.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 13:54:49 GMT -5
No, his stance is something for another thread; not this one. Start one if you wish, but the fact that he disagrees with settlements in Palestinian areas does not mean we no longer have Israel's back.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 11, 2009 13:56:22 GMT -5
Against what? Are the French gonna invade? No current or forseen threat has anything resembling a modern air wing, let alone a futuristic one that costs millons to produce each plane. the F-22 is and was a money hog, both in testing and would be to build and upkeep when other fighters do the job just fine. The days of dogfighting are fairly past, you don't need manuverabillity to defend or fight back as much as you do capable weapons that can strike first I'm going to defend the F-22. While it was seen as a money hog, it was still a small drop in the bucket in overall military spending. Plus we got something useful out of it. While the French fighter is not risk to even the F-15. There are other fighter planes that very much are. The Sukhoi family of fighter jets from Russia. Starting with the Su-30, Su-35 and in the future the Su-37 ans 47 are all bad ass fighter jets that are all equal or heads above the F-15. While Russia may never use them against us or an ally, they do tend to sell military equipment to other counties. You are right about being able to strike first. The Su's have huge radars and could shoot down both F-15's and F/A-18's well beyond even being detected. The F-22 with it's stealth, well won't be seen and can just sneak up on the Su's. That's still why I see it as illogical though. Russia is going to sell a top line fighter jet to who? Given our past enemies and our future ones, who's going to buy these and have trained pilots to fly them that know how to do more than masturbate in the cockpit?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 14:15:15 GMT -5
That's still why I see it as illogical though. Russia is going to sell a top line fighter jet to who? Given our past enemies and our future ones, who's going to buy these and have trained pilots to fly them that know how to do more than masturbate in the cockpit? While I doubt we would ever see a full scale war with Russia. We could still see local skirmishies. Look what happened in Georga. That could have become an bigger situation then it was. Russia has sold Su-30's to Algeria, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Venezuela and Vietaman. In fact China, and India have more of the planes in service then Russia does.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jun 11, 2009 15:15:29 GMT -5
There are no other bases we can use to get to the middle east? Plus isn't the ideas that we get out of the middle east? Sky, don't assume that I want the military to shut the doors tomorrow. At some point, to be a healthy economic nation we will have to cut military funding. That means bases will have to close. Look at it this way. Rammstein is to the US military what JFK or Chicago-O'Hare is to the civilian world; closing them down would blow transit all to Hell. Plus, Landstuhl and Rammstein are linked; shutting one down would cripple the other.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 11, 2009 15:20:32 GMT -5
That's still why I see it as illogical though. Russia is going to sell a top line fighter jet to who? Given our past enemies and our future ones, who's going to buy these and have trained pilots to fly them that know how to do more than masturbate in the cockpit? While I doubt we would ever see a full scale war with Russia. We could still see local skirmishies. Look what happened in Georga. That could have become an bigger situation then it was. Russia has sold Su-30's to Algeria, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Venezuela and Vietaman. In fact China, and India have more of the planes in service then Russia does. Which one, in a sound time period, will we pick a fight with again? I thought we either didn't give a care, were allied to, or owe these countries to the point war or even skirmishes with are not going to happen. I'll give you Russia, but there's only so much that plane they have will do against ground defense and an airborn threat
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 15:34:01 GMT -5
Which one, in a sound time period, will we pick a fight with again? I thought we either didn't give a care, were allied to, or owe these countries to the point war or even skirmishes with are not going to happen. I'll give you Russia, but there's only so much that plane they have will do against ground defense and an airborn threat Situations change. It was not that long ago that we were helping the Afghans defeat the Russians. While I doubt any of those countries would attack us directly, they may attack one of our allies, or openly attack on of their neighbors. While we should not be the world police force, we still need to support the UN if action is taken. Air superiority is key to modern combat.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 11, 2009 15:36:42 GMT -5
Look at it this way. Rammstein is to the US military what JFK or Chicago-O'Hare is to the civilian world; closing them down would blow transit all to Hell. Plus, Landstuhl and Rammstein are linked; shutting one down would cripple the other. I give you Rammstein. There are still more then that in Germany, and other places.
|
|