US aircraft deployed to the Korean theater

reply to post by Gazrok


That, and the sheer embarrassment of losing one of the most advanced aircraft in the world to an air force with nothing better than MiG-29s, and less flying time per year for their entire air force than any one pilot in the US. God can you imagine the outrage?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Didn't keep us from using such tech in Iraq though....or in using that stealth chopper to get Osama (if anyone really believes that whole compound nonsense...).

Whether we got him or not, or when we got him, that piece of the tail of the stealth chopper left in the compound is real enough.

abcnews.go.com...

(I'm sure we didn't get it ALL back)

reply to post by Gazrok


No but those were different scenarios though. In those cases the Air Force didn't flat out lie to Congress in a desperate attempt to get the technology. If you read the testimonies of the Air Force commanders when they were telling Congress why we needed the F-22, you can see all the lies they told about what it was going to be able to do to make sure that Congress approved it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Hehe...my father worked on the Raptor program for quite some time, so I'm sure he's glad it went through...Still, I always wondered what the need for it really was. I think it's just so we had something a little badder than the JSF as an option. I'll have to defer to your expertise on it, that Congress was sold a song and dance.

reply to post by Gazrok


Oh yeah, they promised it was going to be able to do everything including the dishes when it was declared operational. It was going to have an electronic warfare suite included that would be able to tie anything, including IEDs into knots so bad that they wouldn't even realize they were electronics anymore. It was also going to be a "mini-AWACS" for all other aircraft in the area, among other things.

It currently has a very limited electronic warfare suite on board, that won't be fully operational for something like two more software upgrades, and not only can it NOT be a mini-AWACS for other aircraft, it can't currently even TALK to them, because they decided that the Link-16 was too risky as it wasn't stealthy, so the datalink they installed is Raptor specific. Without a BACN relay flying in the area, the F-22 can't send anything to another aircraft. And the F-35 is heading down the same path.

For some reason there seems to be a lot more 130 action around Altus AFB, they even had a C5 out the other day (not sure why, probably just training as usual). Tinker has been pretty busy, though. Ft. Sill has been silent for a couple weeks on artillery. I live within earshot of the range, close enough to rattle dishes in the cupboard when they start doing coordinated shots. I've seen more than a few C-130 class flying around Ft. Sill lately, although I don't believe they actually land there, I think they're either going on to texas, tinker, or heading back to Altus. Just strange to see so many flying around.

Although there has been a lack of artillery from Ft. Sill, I'm hearing a lot of training jets as of the last few weeks. (Likely foreign pilots). I can never see them, but I can certainly here them on the afterburners, which gets quite loud at times.

Something about the title of this thread is incredibly comical to me - the "Korean theater".... this has to be a joke by the powers that be because all the world events presented to us are truly "theater" IMO. It's all a show.. the world's a stage...

reply to post by Ecidemon


Tinker is a base to watch closely. They have E-3s there that would be deployed to assist the ones from Kadena if things go sour in Korea. It's also where the E-6Bs came from that are over there.

reply to post by TheKeyMaster


Theater relates to "area" in warfare. It denotes a place (land/sea/air) where battles are being fought. For example, in WWII, there was the Pacific theater, the African theater, etc. Typically called TO (Theater of Operations).

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by TheKeyMaster

 

Theater relates to "area" in warfare. It denotes a place (land/sea/air) where battles are being fought. For example, in WWII, there was the Pacific theater, the African theater, etc. Typically called TO (Theater of Operations).

Yeah.. I am fully aware of that.. but from what I have learned international events have been controlled for a long time by the powers that be... I honestly don't think it is a coincidence they use that term - theater... it's truly the biggest inside joke ever...

reply to post by TheKeyMaster


Perhaps...as you say, all the world's a stage...just wish Kim didn't have the lead....

the definition is really for any members not familiar with the term....most of this generation never grew up knowing much about REAL wars, and terminology of the wars of yesteryear....

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by TheKeyMaster

 

Perhaps...as you say, all the world's a stage...just wish Kim didn't have the lead....

the definition is really for any members not familiar with the term....most of this generation never grew up knowing much about REAL wars, and terminology of the wars of yesteryear....

edit on 8-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

I think it's no coincidence someone like Kim appears to have the lead... it's the people that appear to be renegades who are the most controlled, imo.

My local raf base handles regular tranitions of u2s, and we normally get dragons every couple of weeks. They always egress south east over france and i assume theyve been watching iran in recent months, but weve not had any visitors in over a month now. I wonder if theyve been redeployed to the far east to help keep an eye on events there? In relation to the ops original point, has anyone got any thoughts/ info on this? I can get the serials of the airframes in question if you need

reply to post by Reaper62


Oh wait scratch that ive just seen a notam for today

if anyone has any idea on what they might be doing tho it would be much appreciated. Definitely seem to be following abmormal patterns lately

reply to post by Reaper62


They've sent Global Hawks there, which are the "replacements" for the U-2... doesn't necessarily mean they won't use them though.

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge

Hush, that's Classified. Yes and since they can carry Six cruise missiles you could say super stealth robot from hell. Global hawk is just a spy platform. Imagine Dark Star on steroids.

Uhh Global Hawks dont carry cruise missiles man

reply to post by Gazrok


Yeah i read about the RQ4s going to Japan, but The U2s must be being used for a reason, whether its anything to do with Korea i dont know, I love that they're still about tho. Considering the SR-71 was supposed to be a replacement for the U2 initially, who's to say they wont outlast the RQ4 as well lol

reply to post by Gazrok


They've been using "creative bookkeeping" to justify getting rid of the Global Hawks in favor of keeping the U-2. At one point they were going to fly a number of Block 30 Global Hawks on literally a one time flight, straight from the factory to the Boneyard and retire them.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I have to think we've got something unannounced that is really fitting this mission profile, ever since the retirement of the Blackbird... I know most point to satellites eliminating the need, but satellites can be predicted and timed, whereas a Blackbird (or some other plane) could get you the info now. Probably drones I suppose...though not as secure as having an independent pilot.

reply to post by Gazrok


There's something out there. I've been hearing rumors for a long time about something (and no it's not the Aurora). But you're right, they're fighting too hard to save a manned program, that's 50 years old, and saying they're going to keep it flying for another 20-30 years or so, which is asking a lot of them, even with the upgrades they've given them to date, and plan for them.