3 Fully Loaded F22's heading out

Originally posted by Dizrael

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Dizrael
i can only assume since NONE of you are practicing very good OPSEC, that none of you are military or ever have been. and if you have/are currently, maybe you should think about who you might be inadvertently telling of our military movements. just a thought.

Sounds good but nobody is coming anywhere near violating OPSEC, the Raptors have a huge civilian fanclub and their peacetime movements are carefully scrutinized (something the USAF enjoys and encourages as they are the current showpiece).

If anyone was worried about who might be watching they would have flown out at night and no one would be the wiser (like when they suddenly showed up in UAE a few months ago

)

there is no "violating" OPSEC, its the military's may of saying use common sense when you talk about things like movements, numbers, payload, dates, places... one small piece of info here put together with a small piece there gives the enemy a bigger picture. when i say they arent practicing good OPSEC, i mean think about what you are saying, do other people really need to know this bit of info? if not, then why say it?

You're taking yourself a bit too seriously and unless the vernacular has changed drastically in 20 years it most certainley is "violating OPSEC".

I did my full bit a long time ago, show some respect.

Besides, you're not educating anyone with the misguided Walter Middy act.

Originally posted by Dizrael

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Dizrael
i can only assume since NONE of you are practicing very good OPSEC, that none of you are military or ever have been. and if you have/are currently, maybe you should think about who you might be inadvertently telling of our military movements. just a thought.

Sounds good but nobody is coming anywhere near violating OPSEC, the Raptors have a huge civilian fanclub and their peacetime movements are carefully scrutinized (something the USAF enjoys and encourages as they are the current showpiece).

If anyone was worried about who might be watching they would have flown out at night and no one would be the wiser (like when they suddenly showed up in UAE a few months ago

)

there is no "violating" OPSEC, its the military's may of saying use common sense when you talk about things like movements, numbers, payload, dates, places... one small piece of info here put together with a small piece there gives the enemy a bigger picture. when i say they arent practicing good OPSEC, i mean think about what you are saying, do other people really need to know this bit of info? if not, then why say it?

Ahem, I think you will find I mentioned it on page one and yes I am ex-Military thanks

Why do you think the Gov wants control and censorship of the net, social media most of all

Because of threads like this


HYPOTHETICAL
3 Russian bears buzz us airspace to test response times and evaluate committed resources
Due to the f-22's stealth it's launch and location is difficult to detect
You just did the job for them

But then the radar sig created by the use of external tanks ?


Your gov moniters sites like this, so does its rivals
This small piece of info coupled with every other little piece of info builds the bigger picture

The old "loose lips sink ships" needs to make a comeback certainly
But whether this constitutes a break in opsec I'm not sure
I mean come on, how many threads are there regarding troop movements, armour transport, aircraft movement - I can only imagine things like twitter and fb are worse

But certainly something for all posters to consider
One day some one will reveal something that could result in something very bad happening !
But to looking at it on the flip side .......more likely to prevent something bad happening ......and gives the rest of us a heads up..........and a chance

reply to post by Neocrusader


I really doubt that we're going to see anything on the net that our opponents don't already know about the Raptor. I'm sure that they know a LOT more about it than any of us, unless one of us works on it and has a need to know. And if that's the case, they know better than to put anything up on the net. If they do, they deserve whatever punishment they get.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Oh I very much agree about the aircraft itself
But the hardware is only one piece of an overall picture

reply to post by Neocrusader


Yes it is. But the bigger picture is what is more closely held. You aren't going to find a lot of things on the net that would give up anything of true importance, that won't be found out in other ways. That's one big reason for Russian aircraft flying along the ADIZ in Alaska.

Originally posted by michael1983l
The USA's enemies do not need to invest vast sums of money into spy satellite eqipment. They only need to log into ATS and read the American people giving all the troop movements away.

Remember loose lips sink ships.

good to see im not the only one thinking this, what branch did you serve? im Air Force.

reply to post by Dizrael


Again, what is the big deal about routine movements within the US?

As for reading ATS, why bother? This is just a sampling of what's out there about more important movements than three F-22s moving around in the US.

F-22s:
AvWeek
ABC
Defense News
Times of Israel
Xinhuanet

There are a lot more than this.

B-2s:
PACAF
Aviation Intel
Aero News
Moguard

There are a lot more, about B-52s, personnel in support of deployments, etc. A lot of which come from the military itself. If they didn't want word of movement to get out, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be announcing what's going on. At least one of the F-22 links even includes the base they deployed to.

reply to post by SickeningTruths


All weapons on the F-22 are stored inside the underbelly of the jet. You seem pretty sure they were fully loaded so i'm going to assume you either saw the weapons being loaded or you loaded them yourself. Would be interested to hear what kind of armaments were loaded. Air to air? Air to ground?

I'd like to be "concerned" over this but not really. It's not more concerning over the usual happenings in the great United Corporations of America. Let's see...people consuming bath salts and going nuts, Obamacare Healthcare getting passed, fighting wars in two different regions of the world, getting ready to start another war with Syria. Foreclosures at an all time high. Unemployment at an all time high. Applications for unemployment insurance at an all time high. No manufacturing. No jobs. Increasing poverty and homelessness. Politicians who are criminals. A foreign policy that has alienated us from the rest of the world, including our allies. Taxes at an all time high. Hmmm...I could care less about three fully loaded F-22's...

reply to post by JAY1980


The "fully loaded" was almost certainly just the external fuel tanks for the ferry home. With two wing tanks, they can go 1600nm, which means they can one hop it back to Alaska, if they have a tanker meet them somewhere near home, depending on where they came out of.

If they came out of the depot at Hill, then they could hop to somewhere in the Pacific Northwest area, overnight and get crew rest, then depart the next morning. Arrange to have a tanker on a training flight out of Elmendorf flying somewhere along their flight path, and they're home in one flight. They can overfly Canada along the way up, so there is always a divert base nearby.

reply to post by Dizrael


Could you please run off some of these UFO'S that follow me to work!! I saw one again last night..they must like me!! Im serious..but go ahead..LOL

Please Relax GUYS!!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Dizrael

 

Again, what is the big deal about routine movements within the US?

As for reading ATS, why bother? This is just a sampling of what's out there about more important movements than three F-22s moving around in the US.

F-22s:
AvWeek
ABC
Defense News
Times of Israel
Xinhuanet

There are a lot more than this.

B-2s:
PACAF
Aviation Intel
Aero News
Moguard

There are a lot more, about B-52s, personnel in support of deployments, etc. A lot of which come from the military itself. If they didn't want word of movement to get out, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be announcing what's going on. At least one of the F-22 links even includes the base they deployed to.

they (military) announce specific movements to appease the public, if its not announced then yes, its either routine no big deal, or maybe they dont want to talk about it. we have a public affairs officer for EVERY base. he/she decides what to tell the public, when to tell them, and what details you will get. just because they tell you what the right hand is doing doesnt mean what the left is doing ISNT important.

reply to post by Dizrael


No, it doesn't, but when you're talking THREE F-22s, then you're talking routine movement. Three F-22s aren't going to deploy anywhere serious, and aren't going to be big game changers. Especially if they're only increment 3 Raptors. There was no violation of any kind of OPSEC here that I can see. If they truly wanted to hide their movements, they could have had a tanker with them, and if necessary gotten a waiver to fly through the night, and not stopped anywhere until they got to where they were going.

I know all about PAOs, and announcements to appease the public. But if they were really serious, do you REALLY think that they would announce that they were deploying F-22s to the UAE, and even give the base that they are deploying to? Or that B-2s were deploying to Guam? Every one of those articles had details that if they were serious would NEVER be released, even to appease the public.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Dizrael

 

No, it doesn't, but when you're talking THREE F-22s, then you're talking routine movement. Three F-22s aren't going to deploy anywhere serious, and aren't going to be big game changers. Especially if they're only increment 3 Raptors. There was no violation of any kind of OPSEC here that I can see. If they truly wanted to hide their movements, they could have had a tanker with them, and if necessary gotten a waiver to fly through the night, and not stopped anywhere until they got to where they were going.

I know all about PAOs, and announcements to appease the public. But if they were really serious, do you REALLY think that they would announce that they were deploying F-22s to the UAE, and even give the base that they are deploying to? Or that B-2s were deploying to Guam? Every one of those articles had details that if they were serious would NEVER be released, even to appease the public.

edit on 6/30/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

i work on the f-15e, we occasionally do whats called ONE, Operation Noble Eagle. it entails 2, yes only 2, f-15s to circle in the airspace above where the President/ Vice President will be if he doesnt have appropriate coverage. so saying that 3 f-22s HAS to be "routine", is pretty ignorant. not to mention the poster said he didnt know what the "baggage" was, probably external tanks, but still couldve been external stores. just means it wasnt on a stealth mission.

reply to post by Dizrael


Yes, but how many did you say? TWO. I have not seen an escort mission flown with three aircraft. It's either 2, or 4, or 6, but I've always seen an EVEN number, so that each aircraft has a wingman to watch his back. I HAVE occasionally seen ferry flights involving odd numbers of aircraft however. They're rare, but they DO happen. Even with the F-22, when they intercept a Russian aircraft in the Alaska ADIZ, there is an even number of them.

Just because he didn't know what the stores were, doesn't mean it's anything but routine.

reply to post by Zaphod58


even number is just prefered, its in no way a requirement, the only requirement is at least 2 for a wigman.

reply to post by Dizrael


I know it's not required. But if you want to see a traditional organization, just look at the military. The tradition has always been an even number of aircraft, and it will probably be an even number of aircraft until we are a mostly unmanned Air Force.

The point of having an even number of aircraft is so that you have a wingman for each aircraft. Otherwise the last one is the odd man out, and he becomes more vulnerable. Now when you're talking an F-22, it's less of a problem than an F-15, but why take the chance? Why risk an aircraft as expensive as the Raptor, when you simply tack on a fourth ship, and everyone gets a wingman.

Lose lips may sink ships but secrets have done far worse things. Technology is a gift to mankind to lift the veil of lies. Are we at war here at home if so who is the enemy? I think they have every right to know if there are bombs being flown over their heads. No more lies no more cover ups. Information is power. Who do you trust enough to wield that power over you? The military, the government, the church, corporations?

Originally posted by Ladysophiaofsandoz
Lose lips may sink ships but secrets have done far worse things. Technology is a gift to mankind to lift the veil of lies. Are we at war here at home if so who is the enemy? I think they have every right to know if there are bombs being flown over their heads. No more lies no more cover ups. Information is power. Who do you trust enough to wield that power over you? The military, the government, the church, corporations?

SOME secrets do harm. not many IMO. id rather keep secrets from EVERYONE if it meant keeping it from the enemy, i dont know anyone here, and i dont trust you anymore than i can trust that you arent a terrorist. so cover it up, lie, keep secrets so we can protect the people that dont want us to.