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-35B combat debut reportedly imminent

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:
GD

posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
As an old jarhead, the tribute to Col Raible most certainly made an ooh rah well up in my throat, and maybe a little F yeah. Col Raible, and those Marines he lead exemplified what we Marines know- all Marines are basic riflemen. The day was heavy with loses, but I am proud of the men for their sacrifices and esprit de corps. as a reply to: Zaphod58



GD

posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
At this point POGO is practically a political blog, I can barely stomach reading it. The political agenda there is blatent. The F-35 is an amazing bird that is going to change war fighting. a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: GD

I read War is Boring, POGO, and lately Task & Purpose for the laughs. Last year, they flew a pair of B-2s from Missouri to Libya, and back to Missouri. They bombed a command post and weapons caches. It was all "Murica!" "Go us!" and "Yay B-2s!"

T&P today ran an article asking why they used the most expensive stealth aircraft ever built, with all the bells and whistles, to blow up AK-47s and RPGs. What really made me laugh is that they pointed out that because of the range to the target, they'd have to refuel in flight.

Ok, let's look at this. It was about a 2000 mile round trip. Figure four refuelings, two inbound, two outbound. Probably two tankers at each AR. Those tankers would have been there regardless, supporting other coalition aircraft.

Now, the B-2 mission. When the B-2s were bombing Iraq from Missouri and going back, they required as many as 14 refuelings. Two tankers per bomber. Even if the tankers landed after the first refueling, took on more fuel and swapped crews for the bomber return leg, that's up to 28 tankers that aren't able to do other things or refuel other aircraft.


GD

posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Yeah, absolutely no common sense shown on that supposition. Especially when you consider that the F-35’s in question are close air support birds- designed to blow up AK’s and RPGs... Worthless websites, all of them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: GD

I read War is Boring, POGO, and lately Task & Purpose for the laughs. Last year, they flew a pair of B-2s from Missouri to Libya, and back to Missouri. They bombed a command post and weapons caches. It was all "Murica!" "Go us!" and "Yay B-2s!"

T&P today ran an article asking why they used the most expensive stealth aircraft ever built, with all the bells and whistles, to blow up AK-47s and RPGs. What really made me laugh is that they pointed out that because of the range to the target, they'd have to refuel in flight.

Ok, let's look at this. It was about a 2000 mile round trip. Figure four refuelings, two inbound, two outbound. Probably two tankers at each AR. Those tankers would have been there regardless, supporting other coalition aircraft.

Now, the B-2 mission. When the B-2s were bombing Iraq from Missouri and going back, they required as many as 14 refuelings. Two tankers per bomber. Even if the tankers landed after the first refueling, took on more fuel and swapped crews for the bomber return leg, that's up to 28 tankers that aren't able to do other things or refuel other aircraft.




 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join