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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Hmm, Putin would have moved if the U.S. had maintained it's forces in Europe?

I doubt that very, much....


You refer to leadership? Well, I can related to that one, at least. None from the U.S. and as a result, no one steps up in Europe.

Europe 'tired of war'? Hmmm... apparently, Putin isn't, nor the Ukrainians.....




posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


So if it wasn't designed to be a strike fighter how could it replace the Corsair and Intruder?

Aging "Attack" intruder and corsair fleets went all the way back to Vietnam. The Navy really needed another bomber to replace them.

Thats why the Hornet changed, plain and simple. The Navy would accept it if it could also be a bomber. Thats why the upgrade and that (the FA 18) became the replacement (eventually) for all three. Thats what we have today and the Hornet is also aging now. To be replaced by…


Maybe we could ask for help from the Russians. After all we depend on them for a ride to the ISS…



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

A bomber isn't an attack aircraft. It really isn't a semantics issue. The Hornet isn't a bomber, it's an attack aircraft.

Yes, they did go back that far, which is why they were replaced by the Hornet. The Hornet was never intended to be a straight up fighter. If they had one aircraft that could do the job of the Phantom, Corsair, and Intruder, it saved both deck space, and the money required to develop two or three different aircraft. It also saved on maintenance costs, because they only had to support one type.

It's also a lot better at both missions than you want to give it credit for. It's by no means great at either, but the only real problem is its combat radius, depending on what mission it's on.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

"...I'm far more interested in the OTHER platform that was there."

---

I'm just guessing here, would it be that triangular twin-engine,
very A12 Avenger look-a-like recon and target-painting craft
that I've heard so much about that USUALLY (but not this time!)
takes off from and returns to Diego Garcia?

...or...

is it that really long pointy needle-nose U2/SR71 replacement
that takes off from some-eki-stan and gets moved around
to and fro within a C17 all the time?


edit on 2014/9/25 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


It's also a lot better at both missions than you want to give it credit for.

Except when it has to pickle its load early to face a fighter threat. I remember hearing about that on occasion.

It doesn't have the range, speed or climb rate, let alone standoff Phoenix equivalent the Tomcat had. It lacks the payload or low level penetration ability of the Intruder.

It is carrier based and a compromise to be part of ann asset that projects force around the world. Unlike land based bombers and fighters that each fulfill dedicated roles in support of a strike package, the FA 18 has to compromise and do both.

Nice chatting with you as usual Zaphod, see ya on the boards.




posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So the A-6 never had to pickle early and run away?

Every point except the range and Phoenix applies to any other strike aircraft.

The Hornet has an excellent low level performance. They train low level all the time, with no problems, both empty and loaded.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I stand corrected! I was going off one of the books on WWII I read in high school back in the mid '60s. It was a hobby of mine during 'lunch-hour'.

This one is interesting though, "Exploding a few myths about WWII armor". Myth one was the Tiger.....

Still, I get your point about quality vs quantity, even though the Tiger vs the T-34 fell as much to tactics ie. taking advantage of the weaknesses of each other's equipment as well as numerical superiority.

All in all, I'd rather have 'quality' and work on increasing the numbers than numbers and trying to improve the quality..



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Hmm, Putin would have moved if the U.S. had maintained it's forces in Europe?

I doubt that very, much....


You refer to leadership? Well, I can related to that one, at least. None from the U.S. and as a result, no one steps up in Europe.

Europe 'tired of war'? Hmmm... apparently, Putin isn't, nor the Ukrainians.....



Moved forces?

Usa is still in the EU.

My uncle lives next a USA base! Reduced but not removed.

Last I checked the USA was never in the Ukraine to beguin with as they were never NATO
And poland and the baltic states have only been NATO since the 90's and have only ever had a small US presence
Infact now they probably have a bigger US presence than ever. Russia has not touched them.

Fact is USA was not a factor in Ukraine. Same as chechya or Georgia before US cuts.

Now if Russia move against a country with US or NATO troops in it then I will concede your point, but Russia wont.


Doesnt matter how big the US military is, the USA wont go to war with Russia unless absolutly nesasary fir 2 reasons:
1) MAD
2) the high cost in money and lives

Putin new that so did his predecesors hence not just ukraine but georgia and the chechnya wars.

Hell look at the smack down og hungey in tne cold war and afganistan ? Usa was at its strongest and did F all.

Fact is USA was not going to ever risk world war holy # over Ukraine.

Fact is the USA will only risk WW3 if one of its key allies are at risk IE UK, japan, Canada ect or itself






edit on 25-9-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58


It's also a lot better at both missions than you want to give it credit for.

Except when it has to pickle its load early to face a fighter threat. I remember hearing about that on occasion.

It doesn't have the range, speed or climb rate, let alone standoff Phoenix equivalent the Tomcat had. It lacks the payload or low level penetration ability of the Intruder.

It is carrier based and a compromise to be part of ann asset that projects force around the world. Unlike land based bombers and fighters that each fulfill dedicated roles in support of a strike package, the FA 18 has to compromise and do both.

Nice chatting with you as usual Zaphod, see ya on the boards.



Actually the new AMRAAM has just a 2-3 mile diffrence on the pheonix missile. the new block versions are better than the old missiles too.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

X-45C perhaps? Just throwing interesting design concepts out there.

Hm....
edit on 25-9-2014 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

This thread is drifting harder than a Toyota in Japan.

So what took the picture?



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

An unmanned platform.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes , reduced, not eliminated. 30K manpower, zero tanks...I'm not sure about air assets.

Hugely reduced. Reduction and 'will' go hand in hand. I'm sure you'd agree if the U.S. presence was at cold war levels Putin would NEVER have moved. (By your own logic of U.S. military supremacy) The grey area is at what level did/would Putin feel the risk was acceptable. To say U.S. military presence or the lack of had 'nothing' to do with Putin's move into Crimea and the Ukraine is flat out wrong- and an insult to Putin's intelligence- at the least, a factor.

I generally agree re Putin. One smart S.O.B.. I also agree 100% on your points re American taking on Russia. Certainly not the Ukraine.

He may get away with it...BUT, he's bought Russia a European version of Afghanistan. Long term it will be nothing but an expensive pain in the ass. Not the buffer he thinks....



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

"...X-45C perhaps? Just throwing interesting design concepts out there. "

How about this craft:



Black Manta with IFR/Optical Photo/Video Recon Gear
and Electronic Counter Measures (ECM)

(Low-Res QnD Rendering by HAE combined from two media-sourced images)
edit on 2014/9/25 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes , reduced, not eliminated. 30K manpower, zero tanks...I'm not sure about air assets.

Hugely reduced. Reduction and 'will' go hand in hand. I'm sure you'd agree if the U.S. presence was at cold war levels Putin would NEVER have moved. (By your own logic of U.S. military supremacy) The grey area is at what level did/would Putin feel the risk was acceptable. To say U.S. military presence or the lack of had 'nothing' to do with Putin's move into Crimea and the Ukraine is flat out wrong- and an insult to Putin's intelligence- at the least, a factor.

I generally agree re Putin. One smart S.O.B.. I also agree 100% on your points re American taking on Russia. Certainly not the Ukraine.

He may get away with it...BUT, he's bought Russia a European version of Afghanistan. Long term it will be nothing but an expensive pain in the ass. Not the buffer he thinks....



Nope.

Even at cold war levels the USA used to let Russia get away with anything except a flat out attack on NATO.

Even if the USA had 200,000 trooos and 5000 tanks? So what? They still would not have rolled into Ukraine as the sames facts would remain:

1)MAD
2) huge loss of lifes

All over a non nato country thats basicaly insignificant too the world.

1 USA solder or 5 entire armys? Doesnt make any diffrence the USA would never have rolled in and risked WW3 over ukraine.

Even when the USA was at its hight it let things like the invasion of Afganistan and the Hungarian uprisiing slide for exactly the above reason not to mention the 2 invasions of chechnya.


Russia has not challenged the US militarly only diplomaticaly.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Comparing America today with Germany in WW2 is a stretch, this is a different age and I doubt we'll ever see warfare like WW2 ever again. America has a massive nuclear weapons arsenal and could never be defeated like Germany in WW2.

By the way the best tanks of WW2 were not German at all, in my opinion the American M26 Pershing and Russian IS-2 were the best. Germany could never match the industrial output of America and Russia and fight on two fronts. Allied air supremacy and the destruction of German industrial capacity and war production played a huge role. Also the M1 Abrams is one of the best tanks in the world today.

Zaphod is right the F/A-18A Hornet was always a ground attack and strike capable jet from day 1. The navy selected the YF-17, the losing LWF prototype, because they wanted a twin engine jet and it was redesigned and navalized. I think the Hornet has been an excellent strike aircraft.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: KnightLight




Of course still no one has told me what the heck that silent black triangle was.. I saw it so dang close.


Please, do tell of your story. I would give my left *** to get close to one of those things.


sent you a PM. not sure if this thread fits my experience long ago..



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Sources tell me it was a flock of pigeons armed with cameras that took the mysterious pictures. There's a video of Denzel in character from training day on a nearby roof. You can hear him clapping if you listen closely.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

It really isn't that hard to piece together. I love you guys, I've been reading you for years and you've been talking about said platform for years....You KNOW what this is!



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
does this ring a bell?


edit on 26-9-2014 by aholic because: wording



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join