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.

 

F-22s deploy to Europe in larger numbers...

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr


I highly doubt that they'd be deployed if those nations didn't want/ask for them.


I think the uS has militarily occupied European nations, especially Germany, since WWII with troops, tanks, air bases and missiles (w/ nukes) and ultimately they will be forced to do whatever the US tells them to.

The Russians left East Germany and went home, the US should too.


The Russians were sent home. Perhaps because of that habit of invading Warsaw Pact allies whenever they dared to think about leaving the were not all that trusted. NATO allies do the opposite of what US wants as often as not. And less than 70,000 US forces compared to NATO's European and Turkish 2 million active duty troops is hardly an occupation in particular because they would leave if asked. And of course ignore the fact the NATO nations like Germany have had military forces in the US since the 1950s.

As for the OP, NATO is an integrated military alliance everybody has to have a pretty good idea of what they are fighting beside for best coordination. The numbers sent are hardly threatening.




posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad


The Russians were sent home.

They weren't driven out in battle, they left. I understand it doesn't jive with with western narrative, though.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I just have a quick silly question. What was leaking out around the front tire in the very beginning of the video? I assume it is normal, just curious as to what it is.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman


There were several comments on that dripping on the You Tube sites.
It looked like water. You could see it on more than one Raptor as it began taxiing. Condensation?


Zaph?



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As it should be.

SeaYote- you are absolutely correct that the positioning of both strategic and tactical assets should be kept quiet unless otherwise desired. But this deployment was announced by the Air Force probably because they wanted it to be known and reported. Any other potential aspects about their presence will rightfully be kept under tight wraps to avoid that trail of crumbs until the Air Force is content with releasing them.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr


I highly doubt that they'd be deployed if those nations didn't want/ask for them.


I think the uS has militarily occupied European nations, especially Germany, since WWII with troops, tanks, air bases and missiles (w/ nukes) and ultimately they will be forced to do whatever the US tells them to.

The Russians left East Germany and went home, the US should too.


The Russians were sent home. Perhaps because of that habit of invading Warsaw Pact allies whenever they dared to think about leaving the were not all that trusted. NATO allies do the opposite of what US wants as often as not. And less than 70,000 US forces compared to NATO's European and Turkish 2 million active duty troops is hardly an occupation in particular because they would leave if asked. And of course ignore the fact the NATO nations like Germany have had military forces in the US since the 1950s.

As for the OP, NATO is an integrated military alliance everybody has to have a pretty good idea of what they are fighting beside for best coordination. The numbers sent are hardly threatening.


Around a dozen Raptors are hardly threatening? Really? Well, only if Putin had designs. 12 Raptors would likely take out more than half an inbound attacking flight, BVR. Then the Raffis and the EFs would clean up the remainder. Guaranteed air dominance is about all....



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaYote


Whatever is said here is easily obtainable by anyone with half a brain and half an hour. The most classified and dark part of the government is the surveillance community. Spy satellites made in the 60s have only recently had any information replaced and they've been replaced many times since the 60s. All of the satellites are for hunting things like nuclear arsenals. I'd be willing to say the US has a fairly good idea where a majority of the major power's weapons are at any given time. The opposition probably knows a lot less but a lot more than you'd be comfortable imagining.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

Roger that, justwanttofly



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Saw a flight of four earlier today around 20:00
,Quieter than i expected ....zaph what are the chances of a permanent deployment to where they are now ? Lakenheath is going to get USAF f35's and the UK's f35 base is 20 miles away at Marham.Would they need raptor protection or would they be just fine by themselves if TSHTF?



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: yittak

It would cost, but it's being tossed around. The Typhoons will serve the role of F-22 for the F-35 for now, but they're definitely considering moving some permanently to somewhere in Europe. I'm not sure they'd go to the UK with the realignment they're planning though.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Text
a reply to: Zaphod58

Here's an interesting explanation of the claimed flight to France on the 20th of this month:


www.egxwinfogroup.co.uk...

That would make the fly-by tomorrow...


edit on 19-4-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I don't know if this is the real reason the Raptors are across the pond, but it seems to be at least part of the reason.

It's in French...

www.defens-aero.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Just to add -

It looks like Congress / DoD are considering to purchase more F-22's (about 200).

Im curious why they are doing this -
* - Resurgent Russia?
* - upgrades to US airforce?
* - F-35 issues?

I about fell over when I saw the price tag for one F-22 - 400+ million.

The F-35 runs around 35+ million.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

F-35 is a lot more than that. The A runs about $98M without engine in the last LRIP. About $110M with engine. The B and C run about $10 and $12M more respectively.

No matter how good the F-22 is 187 of them are limited in what they can do in the event of a near peer conflict.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The F-35 is about 90 to 120 million depending if it's fly away cost or not.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
a reply to: Sammamishman

I stand corrected. My apologies.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join