It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raptor gets it's baptism of fire in Syria?

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KnightLight

despite the F-22 not being equipped with an electrooptical system


This actually really fascinates me. Because you're right, no they're not supposed to have one. But the squadron that carried out this strike [3rd TFW, Alakska] was JUST updated with new sensors that we're lifted out of the F-35 and modified to work with the Raptor's older APG-77 radar. There is a great picture floating around out there. From what I've heard it brings much of the ground scanning ability of the JSF to the Raptor but minus the helmet-mounted cueing system.

...Still however this is not what we're looking through in this vid!




posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Nochzwei

To quote Alfred E Neuman, "What, me worry?"

There's enough 'possibles' out there to stew about. I don't bother with them. It's not worth the effort..


Don't know if you or neuman have been to Russia and spoken to some military brass there and seen some things.
Yes 'ignorance is bliss' I guess.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

I find the last paragraph of page 181 to be quite enlightening. Perhaps there is something we don't know about the Raptor.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   
2008


2012



Do we think something has been added lately???
edit on 25-9-2014 by aholic because: dates added



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
What will we do if their famous line 'We'll send the entire west to your god moloch in 15 minutes ', is not a hollow claim and actually launch it? Would there be any time to react? I think not


Do you mean Russia's nuclear arsenal? America has one too. If either side tried to use it on the other it would result in MAD and probably irradiate the whole world, so it's all academic really. It doesn't really matter who's got what they can destroy each other with nuclear weapons no problem at all. SLBMs with MIRVs on both sides can still launch even if their side has been hit.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Okaaay… you may fdiffer with me on everything I say but I'll present the rebuttal to that last reply here so others can read into that what they may. Yah, you are right the F 14 "last roundup" was in 2006.


…but all F-14A and F-14B airframes had already been retired, and the last two squadrons, the VF-31 Tomcatters and the VF-213 Black Lions, both flying the "D" models, arrived for their last fly-in at Naval Air Station Oceana on 10 March 2006.

---

The last American F-14 to fly a combat mission, an F-14D from VF-213, lands at Sherman Field at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida.The last American F-14 combat mission was completed on 8 February 2006, when a pair of Tomcats landed aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt after one dropped a bomb in Iraq.


last Tomcats retired

So you are right again the last of the Mohicans stood down in 2006. Long since replaced by the F18, excuse me the F"A" 18. It did replace it, by the way. I don't know why you argue semantics, you seem unable to address the statements I make just to disagree?

FA18 to replace F14



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's not semantics, it's you trying to be right. The Hornet replaced the Tomcat out of convenience. It kept them from having to develop a new fighter, spending years and billions of dollars.

It also doesn't have anything to do with your original point that the Hornet was a straight fighter that had a later attack role added.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't the F-22 a major piece of crap? Pilots are afraid or refuse to fly it? They have cost like 3 or 4 times the original cost? They entered service in 2005 yet they just now enter combat? Haven't these planes spent most of there service time grounded?

Are they a lemon?


Your thinking of the F-35.

But from what I heard its got potential and uses still.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock


(tiger tank)--Overly complex, expensive, heavy, slow, unreliable, poor in snow and mud come to mind.

My point exactly. M1 Abrahms comes to mind. Sure, it had long resupply lines stretching behind it… all the way back to America.

Tigers destroyed whatever they encountered. But were eventually overwhelmed by sheer numbers, not better tanks. You cite the T34 -- better in cold weather, more mobile, helping to turn the tide in Russia, but was still vulnerable to the Tiger when they met.


19Apr 1945, Bollersdorf (Germany): 4 Tiger 2 attacked and destroyed 120 T-34-85 and JS-2’s, at ranges of 1,5 – 3km. The battle raged for a few hours, with about 30 T-34s destroyed during the night. (All tank commanders were given the Knight Cross on the 28th of April)
• 20Apr 1945, Klostendorf, Germany: 1 Tiger 2 of the SS-103rd Panzer destroyed 13 soviet tanks at ranges of 2-4km.

---

For instance, on the 12th of July 1943, 6 Tigers of the 504th heavy tank battalion launched a counter-attack in Italy, towards Vittoria. They were met by 40-50 US tanks and surrounded. In the fierce battle that followed, 16 US tanks were knocked-out (10 burned), and 3 Tigers lost on the battlefield. The other 3 Tigers got away, although each suffered over 100 hits !

Link

Like I said, far superior, but not enough numbers.

I made that whole parallel to bolster my point about the superiority of Americas fighting machine on land or in the air. You are right, they have proved superior in every engagement so far in their theatre against military of minor nations. Conflict with superpowers looms if we don't stop pushing the envelope. The outcome of that remains to be seen.

Long supply lines, fewer more expensive numbers and too many fronts exactly parallel the German Wermacht operations in WWII. They had the best and they thought they could never lose.

Thats what all empires think.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Between Bush Presidencies, we shrunk over 50% in size militarily. That shrinking continues. Massive social spending increases have contributed to that.




And the USA could shrink it military another 50% in size and still be more powerful than its two main rivals Russia and China put together.


The USA military has gone far far far far far beyond a defence force. It a global empire force.
edit on 25-9-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


it's you trying to be right. The Hornet replaced the Tomcat

I am right, it did replace it. You just admitted it, thank you.


"Knock it off, knock it off, gentlemen. All units return to base."



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


It's a balancing act with a lot of gray areas.

You're right. One grey being actual theatre wide combat…

Have we replaced the numbers equation of budgets versus superiority with our pride? Seems that the newer the offerings are the more complex and expensive they become. Could it be that shrinking budgets mean less profit margin so the Military Industrial Complex is subsequently raising the price of each unit?

In that multiple roles for shrinking numbers of aircraft and mechanized armor require each platform to fit all occasions?



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Wow, you'll go to great lengths to be right. The Hornet replacing the Tomcat had nothing to do with your original point. Need me to remind you of what that was?


Neither was the F18 originally designed to be a strike fighter.


Which later became,


the Navy wanted a replacement for the TomCat, Corsair and Intruder.


So if it wasn't designed to be a strike fighter how could it replace the Corsair and Intruder? And if they didn't retire the Tomcat for twenty three years after the Hornet was introduced how was it a replacement for the Tomcat when they bought it?

Your argument has changed as you were proven wrong, you just can't admit it. The Hornet was designed from the get go as a strike fighter, and it didn't replace the Tomcat until the Navy decided to retire it after they had to remove the Phoenix from inventory. And then it only replaced the Tomcat out of convenience, it wasn't originally planned to.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock

originally posted by: Nochzwei
What will we do if their famous line 'We'll send the entire west to your god moloch in 15 minutes ', is not a hollow claim and actually launch it? Would there be any time to react? I think not


Do you mean Russia's nuclear arsenal? America has one too. If either side tried to use it on the other it would result in MAD and probably irradiate the whole world, so it's all academic really. It doesn't really matter who's got what they can destroy each other with nuclear weapons no problem at all. SLBMs with MIRVs on both sides can still launch even if their side has been hit.
No I did not mean nuclear or chemical at all. Rather not elaborate any more.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Full briefing on the initial strikes:

www.youtube.com...

First time I saw the slide about the tomahawk airburst destroying the comm array on roof of a building..pretty cool stuff.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman

originally posted by: bigx001
we really don't know what the military/NSA/CIA really have as operational aircraft. and they don't sit still with development


Which is why I don't think it was the -170 as the -170 was supposedly a stop gap measure till the -180's got going. I don't believe the -170 has the loiter time or the survivability in an unknown air defense arena for that amount of time and is older tech than the -180.



you can guesstimate a few things. loiter time means relatively slow to reduce fuel burn. the longer you loiter the more fuel you need. bigger and longerwings give you more storage for fuel as does shape of the body.

so you can get an idea of what something that will loiter for a long time could look like



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: bigx001

Precisely, and don't forget it had to be stealth, so after doing so it starts to look a lot more like the concepts for the -180. A rather large flying wing.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001

originally posted by: Sammamishman

originally posted by: bigx001
we really don't know what the military/NSA/CIA really have as operational aircraft. and they don't sit still with development


Which is why I don't think it was the -170 as the -170 was supposedly a stop gap measure till the -180's got going. I don't believe the -170 has the loiter time or the survivability in an unknown air defense arena for that amount of time and is older tech than the -180.



you can guesstimate a few things. loiter time means relatively slow to reduce fuel burn. the longer you loiter the more fuel you need. bigger and longerwings give you more storage for fuel as does shape of the body.

so you can get an idea of what something that will loiter for a long time could look like


Or maybe it was more than one airframe? We really have no idea when the before and after pics were taken other than it was around the same time of day. The "before" pic could be any day before. Nothing says it has to be a long loitering craft..we know they have more than one Sentinal airframe, there's no reason why they couldn't be rotating. And like I said before, there's no way to know that one of those wasn't a satellite image either (at least that I'm aware of..only reason I don't say both is because I don't think a satellite flying in a straight line could get both those angles).

I'm still not sure why they used F-22s for this strike..they used other non-stealth airframes for other strikes. Maybe Syria had a SAM site near by this site? Maybe F-22 is able to carry some special new weapon that they used in the strike? I posted a quote earlier from one of the articles where someone in the AF was quoted as saying that they used the F-22 because of the 'effect' it provided..very ambiguous, but also a bit telling that it wasn't necessarily because of it's stealth. If that's the case, then the images could be from ANY airframe with a camera on it.

However, I'd like to think it's some sexy new airframe..but without being "in the know", it really could be just about anything.
edit on 25-9-2014 by quatro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: quatro

I agree completely, I hope this is footage from the 180 and the fact that the video is being publicised means we'll be getting some pics soon. But there's also some wishful thinking going on. Taking the fact that the shadows in 3 images appear to be at the same angle; people who want this to be believe the 180 might choose to believe they were taken over 3 days, but the more logical explanation is that they were taken 5 minutes apart!



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: gfad

Except for the lack of fire and smoke in the after picture. There's a good bit of smoke immediately after the third and fourth bomb hits, and the camera zooms out.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join