Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

reconteam

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    378

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by reconteam

  2. Posted

    I'm not saying it has anything to do with their nuclear program, but it highlights the behavior. It is also absolutely unacceptable that we allow our stealth technology (even if it's older) to be compromised like that.

    Their patrol craft bait US ships, they parade around this captured UAV wreckage, they ship arms to Iraqi militants, and they press forward with their nuclear program despite the condemnation of the international community. When they get attacked the only people they will have to blame is themselves. Nowhere am I claiming that all people of Iran are evil, but their leadership consists of power hungry fools more obsessed with a hatred of the west and Israel than what's best for their people.

    If war with Iran is inevitable, lets not bother with a ground invasion and a decade of nation-building. Smash everything from the air and sea. Leave them with no working planes, no floating ships, every military facility bombed to rubble until they seek terms.

  4. Posted

    Revealing.

    Since I am objective, I don't mind saying that the F22 is, in video game form, a quite nice bit of kit but this is reality. The main complaint I have against the F22 is that $60-70billion isn't a small amount of money to throw away and I don't see how people can defend waste on such a large scale when, if spent on real equipment, could be saving lives.

    Vanity projects might be good for the average 14 year old to spaff over but a 14 year old has not got the mental capacity to realise that with, the poverty and strife in the US, the wars and the strain on the public purse this project was a drain.

    I don't really care why, I don't blame anyone and the aircraft looks nice but what would I really want? More aircraft in the air over Afghanistan, more equipment and more troops or less than 200 aircraft that are too costly to maintain and would be instantly shelved in any serious combat, for which they are built?

    What is revealing? That I don't enjoy the tripe they spew? If I recall you're the one who began the Christian baiting.

    Yes $60-70 billion is a large sum. Aerospace and defense are very expensive industries, but it is good for us to have these industries. As a nation we need to balance the money spent on current conflicts with money spent preparing for other conflicts we may face. It's true that A-10s and turboprop counter-insurgency attack aircraft could do much of the work in Afghanistan, but what about an enemy with an actual air force, with more than some MANPADS and light anti-aircraft guns. How much longer are we to rely on old F-15s and F-16s? Wear and tear means we have to replace these aircraft someday anyway.

    These industrial capabilities take decades to establish and must be maintained. It isn't like it was back in WWII where you could crank out 10,000 F6F Hellcats in a few years. You can't stop and restart a program like the F-22 with the flip of a switch. Processes related to production begin years in advance.

    There are many things we shouldn't spend so much money on, including these drawn out nation-building campaigns we have a habit of getting involved in. The F-22 however was something that deserved the funding despite the problems it faced. It was a program badly affected by the end of the Cold War and the politics of the past two decades, but it could and still can be extremely capable. The F-35 is even more critical due to the sheer number of aircraft it is supposed to replace.

    Yes it is all costly, but I'd gladly see us spend a trillion if it got us F-22s, F-35s, B-3s, and whatever else to ensure we have incredible tactical and strategic airpower capabilites. Going into the future we should invest more in strategic airpower and seapower and less on so many bases overseas and such a large land force.

    (A bit off-topic but I still wish we had a reason to produce some sort of F-23 derived aircraft.)

  7. Posted

    I love the F22 apologists, they are like the average youtube Christian. No matter what it is the best thing ever. I especially was intrigued by that Hayek/Mises apologist being in favour of an aircraft that is basically a costly failure of a public project.

    So are those pimping Eurofighter or Sukhois are like average Youtube atheists? Spamming BS wherever they go regardless of the subject?

    The thing about the F22 is, it wouldn't be supportable in total war, it isn't fit for current wars and it is unlikely, or be able, to be deployed ever. For that money the US tax payer could have 60-70billions worth of equipment that would have been saving lives and contributing more to the efforts the US military is engaged in or, if the 14 year olds insist, buy one very big mobile gas-van that can fly to get the same results as they have now.

    Once this inexcusable (somebody's head should roll) OBOGS issue gets sorted out, all Block 30 and Block 35 F-22As are combat capable and could be deployed. But what about Libya would have justified deploying the few Raptors the USAF managed to get?

    The rest of the fleet should be brought up to the standard of later Blocks, but that involves money the USAF would have to fight for. Right now the USAF is more concerned about getting the F-35 and not getting gutted by our leadership.

    Not everything has to be a multi-role design. The F-22A is almost a pure air-superiority fighter, but later blocks do have a limited strike capability, unlike the A-D models of the F-15.

    It's tough to get a clear picture of the F-22's data-linking problems as plans for upgrades keep changing. From what I've read, the F-22 can receive data from the Link 16 system but can't transmit via it for stealth reasons. The F-22 was supposed to receive the next-generation MADL system used by the F-35, but plans for that got delayed/cancelled. It does have the functioning IFDL system but only other F-22s plus a handful of modified EQ-4B Global Hawks are compatible with that.

    If I had my way, we would resume development and production of the F-22 alongside the F-35. Production would switch to an improved F-22C, introducing side AESA radar arrays, an IRST system, integration of more weapon systems, and the improved stealth coatings, avionics, and networking systems developed for the F-35.

    Unfortunately, it seems like the F-22 will be remembered as a very promising aircraft that was cut off at the knees by post Cold War military "reform", development troubles, and some sheer incompetence. Now everything rests on the F-35.

  8. Posted

    @Nicholas

    please inform yourself a little bit more about your "pride" and how things really work. hint: money printing machine for military nonsensical programs/designs errm potential. ;)

    It would be nonsensical to not develop and field new systems. We've been flying the F-15 since the '70s and you object to replacing it "only" 40 years later? Even if we got all of the F-22s we needed the F-15E would be around well into the 2020s.

    UCAVs can provide an excellent supplement to manned aircraft, but the technology is not there to replace them. Even if it was, would you risk the loss of control if the enemy was able to jam communications to said UCAVs? They'd be stuck operating autonomously, which isn't very good in terms of flexibility.

    The parameters for something to be considered "supercruise" varies. Technically it is cruising at supersonic speeds without afterburner. A number of older aircraft could do this, including the F-14D. However what's the difference between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.0? Not all that much. As a result Lockheed only officially considers it supercruise if it is above Mach 1.4 or something, other companies probably have their own parameters.

  10. Posted

    So you basically saying that all the taxpayers have to pay for anykind + every military development/research or construction? Why not develop + build a money printing machine for those companies and lobbies??

    I'm damn pleased when my tax dollars are going to new fighters, bombers, vehicles and ships overs any number of the nonsensical social programs I see going on. The military is one of the few areas (other than our history), where I can still have some pride in my country. Plus the defense industry is a very important industrial and technological base, one of the few areas where some manufacturing actually still occurs in this country.

    Any procurement program works best when you don't keep changing the specifications, don't cut planned purchase numbers, and don't treat it as some sort of political football for 15+ years.

  12. Posted

    I haven't heard anything about the G36 being chambered in the 6.8x43mm caliber. I would have expected any number of defense industry publications or firearms sites to pick up on such a thing. Are you sure this isn't just an incorrect rumor?

    Not that a 6.8mm G36 wouldn't be cool, it certainly would, I'm just curious as to if such a thing is actually going to be developed or fielded.

  16. Posted · Edited by ReconTeam

    Serbia also had one of the most heavily defended SAM networks on earth.

    Stealth worked against Saddam, but failed against Serbia.

    One F-117A was shot down by a skilled SAM battery with a lot of luck on their side. Most of Serbia's air defense network had been suppressed but a few clever units were able to operate in a manner which allowed them to launch a few SAMs occasionally. Does this mean stealth failed? No, stealth is just another aspect to survivability, it's not a method to make an aircraft invulnerable. Also, the only area where the F-117A would have a clear advantage in terms of stealth would be in its IR signature, although both the F-22 and F-35 include some features (nozzle design and cooling of the leading edges of the F-22) designed to cut back on this somewhat.

    The F22 is a massive joke that has had the American people throwing their money at Lockheed Martin for zero gain.

    Oh yes, because it would be far wiser to kill our fighter developments and keep flying the same designs for the next 40 years...

    The F-22 has its share of problems but it's an incredibly capable aircraft with more potential than currently recognized. Maybe it wouldn't have had so many troubles if the program wasn't constantly being messed with by Congress and the Pentagon throughout the 1990s. Constant changes in specifications, procurement numbers, funding, the decision to stretch out the EMD phase, and the consolidation of the aerospace industry during the time were bound to create some problems.

  18. Posted

    Does it have the "balanced" operating system of the AK-107/108? If it is only an AK-74 with some additions, I'm not all that impressed. But I'm sure it will do the job well enough.

  21. Posted

    Germany couldn't even invade Britain, so you want me to believe that they were going to invade North America? As far as the Japs go, they had their own Vietnam in China going on.

    I'm curious as to what you are implying here. Should we have let either the Soviets or Germans control the whole of Europe (minus Great Britain and probably Spain)? Without American aid via lend-lease and other programs, Germany probably would have been able to starve them out of the war.

    Should we have played along with Japanese intentions? They expected to defeat us in enough decisive battles that we'd sign a treaty before our industrial strength could overwhelm them.

    Sometimes you can't just let the world carry on like that.

  22. Posted

    * Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

    Yet what are the specifics of this? One man's "waste" is another mans critical component to a modernization effort.

    Ron Paul has a horribly habit of shooting himself in the foot by making statements like how the border fence could be used to keep Americans in. I can't help but think he's trying to appeal to the conspiracy theory wackos.

    I'd be worried about Ron Paul's inactivity when it comes to all of the insane, lobotomized judges in the judiciary system. I know he has his libertarian principles, but some of these judges we have now are crazy and far overstepping their boundaries.

    Fox 09 you criticize Reagan but Peace through Strength is the only sensible military policy out there.

    Reagan was smart enough to not get involved in long-term operations in Lebanon and you can't blame him for not having a crystal ball in regards to Afghanistan. For all we know, Afghanistan could have easily ended up in the same sorry state. The Mujaheddin weren't quite as radical back then either. The radical aspects mainly took over in the '90s. I'm generally against nation-building, but perhaps the answer was doing just that after the Soviets were driven out. Ever watch Charlie Wilson's War?

    We don't need nearly as many foreign bases and installations as we do have, but some naval and air bases are very good to have. Strategic airpower and seapower!

  23. Posted · Edited by ReconTeam

    The attack on the USS Liberty was not a false-flag operation. Why? Because the premise behind that theory is downright foolish. The Israeli aircraft and ships involved were clearly marked and not using proper anti-ship weapons. Instead they were armed with napalm. Napalm is terrifying stuff, but it isn't effective against a steel ship. Everything is indicative of a few assets in the area scrounged together and sent to attack a target that was wrongly identified. Yet the attack was called off when somebody competent realized what had occurred and acted upon it.

    It it was a false flag operation wouldn't the Israeli aircraft have been unmarked and armed with bombs capable of sinking the vessel? The pro-Israel lobby in the United States wasn't nearly as powerful as it is today. Yet I am to believe they could get Congress to ignore an intentional attack and then join the war on the side of Israel? At the time an order of A-4 Skyhawks was pending. This was important because it was the first military equipment sold directly to Israel. They would risk this and the promise of future deals in some mad plot designed to get the United States to invade Egypt or something?

    Back then, the IAF wasn't nearly as capable as they were today. There were some veteran pilots but most were green and all didn't get much training in target identification beyond looking for the Israeli flag. They didn't have anything like all of the communications and command systems we have today. On several occasions throughout the Six-Day War, Israeli aircraft mistakenly attacked IDF forces on the ground. Incompetence is the far more likely explanation. Despite being originally identified as an American ship, somebody changed the designation of the USS Liberty to "unknown." Later, somebody else ordered an attack based off all sorts of conflicting and mistaken reports coming in from along the coast. At worst, maybe one or a handful officers came up with this idea and attempted to execute it to bring America into the war. Yet the idea that it was a plot orchestrated by the Israeli government is just foolish.

    Why do many Liberty crewmen blame the Israelis? Because they want somebody to blame and rightfully so. As far as I know, nobody was publicly held accountable. The investigation was rushed through in an attempt to avoid worsening relationships, yet that only made things worse in the long-run.

×