The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Rebel on September 24, 2009, 10:14:22 AM
-
(http://www.iranian.com/News/Jan99/Images/f5.jpg)
Iran loses its only AWACS as Ahmadinejad threatens the world
Up above a big military parade in Tehran on Tuesday, Sept. 22, as Iranian president declared Iran's armed forces would "chop off the hands" of any power daring to attack his country, two air force jets collided in mid-air. One was Iran's only airborne warning and control system (AWACS) for coordinating long-distance aerial operations, DEBKAfile's military and Iranian sources disclose.
The proud military parade, which included a march-past, a line of Shehab-3 missiles and an air force fly-past, was planned to give Ahmadinejad a dazzling send-off for New York and add steel to his UN Assembly speech Wednesday. ---MORE--- (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6280)
Tell me there's no God and that he doesn't have a sense of humor. :nutkick:
-
So much for air to air coordination.
-
Just days after the "shot down" a UFO too
-
Awww, that's too bad. Too bad it didn't land on the VIP stand, that is.
-
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Like the Towel heads could make the thing useful anyway. If 'I-can't-find-my-ass-with-both-hands' is any indication, those people are about as smart as road kill. This proves their "outstanding" skills in flying in tight formation. Crimaney, if you can't even do that, what chance do you think you have against Israeli pilots?
Ah well, just 2 less Israel needs to shoot out of the sky later.
edited to add........
-
Might have been retaliation for the UFO shoot down last week :evillaugh:
-
Frankly, I'm surprised it could fly at all. Given the number of F-14's the Iranian's had when the Shah fell, their number of flyable planes rapidly dwindled to where they had barely a flight of them able to take to the air by the end of the Iran-Iraq war.
And given that most of Iran's pilots back then were US-trained (and therefore the Mullahs had a hard-on to purge them from the ranks), and you've got a real problem. I'm guessing that Iran's air force is at best a hobbled together mix of varying types, none of which is in significant numbers.
Basically, if Iran's air force was going to be a viable threat to anything larger than single carrier air wing, I'd be surprised.
-
Frankly, I'm surprised it could fly at all. Given the number of F-14's the Iranian's had when the Shah fell, their number of flyable planes rapidly dwindled to where they had barely a flight of them able to take to the air by the end of the Iran-Iraq war.
And given that most of Iran's pilots back then were US-trained (and therefore the Mullahs had a hard-on to purge them from the ranks), and you've got a real problem. I'm guessing that Iran's air force is at best a hobbled together mix of varying types, none of which is in significant numbers.
Basically, if Iran's air force was going to be a viable threat to anything larger than single carrier air wing, I'd be surprised.
No, they have some "new and sophisticated" jets now.
[youtube=425,350]jexr944Allg[/youtube]
...trying hard not to laugh.....
...trying.......
...trying......
...trying......
:rotf:
-
Tell me there's no God and that he doesn't have a sense of humor. :nutkick:
Eye witnesses reported that the flaming planes landed on the mausoleum burial site of the Islamic revolution's founder Ruhollah Khomeini, a national shrine.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
Frankly, I'm surprised it could fly at all. Given the number of F-14's the Iranian's had when the Shah fell, their number of flyable planes rapidly dwindled to where they had barely a flight of them able to take to the air by the end of the Iran-Iraq war.
And given that most of Iran's pilots back then were US-trained (and therefore the Mullahs had a hard-on to purge them from the ranks), and you've got a real problem. I'm guessing that Iran's air force is at best a hobbled together mix of varying types, none of which is in significant numbers.
Basically, if Iran's air force was going to be a viable threat to anything larger than single carrier air wing, I'd be surprised.
What UFO, who shot at it and where did it go.?
I have to agree with Sparky, these people are making the same mistakes that country's do that exclude other thinking and training.
Had Germany used the most valuable resource of Germany, the Jewish scientists and doctors, in the war, enlisted the Jewish population into the military---------A very different world we would have.
This is kind of sad that a country's population is being doomed by their leaders. But, as Obama said, that is their choice. If these people are willing to live in slavery, poverty and war, that is their choice. No business of ours.
Listening to the Israeli PM speak on TV at this time. I feel that Christians must stand by their God, that told of in the old Testament. To turn ones back on the Jews is to turn their back on Jesus Christ. How can anyone celebrate Xmas the birth of the KING of the Jews yet speak of hate toward all Jews.
Next sunday when I attend church I have a mind to speak up if anything from Psalms to what ever is read from the old Testament. How can any Christian Church preach from a book that they say is no longer valid? Jesus came to change the law of God some say, OK so why keep preaching from the old Testament if it is invalid?
Who do Christians stand with, the humane part of Jesus and his ancestors and ignore those that wish to destroy both Jews and Christians.
If Jesus changed the rules then why bother to read the old.?
Questions that came from my youth through my life into my old age.
Any assult on the Jews is a fore coming assult on Christians. They are Family, hold the Book, both testament's as valid.
-
No, they have some "new and sophisticated" jets now.
That thing looks like an F-5/T-38 with a twin rudder, and that's being generous.
-
That thing looks like an F-5/T-38 with a twin rudder, and that's being generous.
I notice they still had the dust covers over the intakes while the plane was taxiing. Must be a pretty sensitive engine, if they're that scared of dust/FOD getting to it. I'd hate to see what a Sidewinder warhead could do to it. :uhsure:
-
In other news, Iran test launched their latest medium range cruise missle today...
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Iran/hypnomissile-1.jpg)
-
At least during the Iran-Iraq war the Iranian Air Force was still pretty good. As far as I know they still might be even with this poor performance on their part. The Russians have been helping them in all kinds of ways to inclued selling them their latest jets to mke up for the losses of their F-14's .In return the Russians supposedly got a crack at looking at or got one of their F-14's. That one in the video is for all intents.just another F-5/T-38 with two tails and maybe better engines. The original company that built the F-5 had at one time thought of doing the same thing but it was dropped in favor of going after the Air Forces LWF program which produced the YF-16 and the YF-17 which later became the F/A-18 Hornet we know today.
-
No, they have some "new and sophisticated" jets now.
That has all the capabilities of an F-5, if they're lucky
-
That has all the capabilities of an F-5, if they're lucky
Which means, against a flight of F-16s or F-18s (since Lord Ø feels the US Air Force should tie one arm behind it's back when fighting the rest of the world, and NOT have the F-22 replace the ancient F-15s in the inventory) they'll go down like MiG-21s or MiG-23s. By the numbers.
-
From my reading, it is not the aircraft but the pilots that matter. They performed well against Iraq, but Iraq's pilots all fled as soon as they got in the air when facing US pilots.
The problems is, we may very well see a contest between US and Iranian pilots. May the poor Iranian pilots rest in peace.
-
The problems is, we may very well see a contest between US and Iranian pilots. May the poor Iranian pilots rest in peace pieces.
FIFY
-
(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7818/tehran.jpg)
-
From my reading, it is not the aircraft but the pilots that matter. They performed well against Iraq, but Iraq's pilots all fled as soon as they got in the air when facing US pilots.
The problems is, we may very well see a contest between US and Iranian pilots. May the poor Iranian pilots rest in peace.
The ones they still had left after they purged their ranks did, mainly because they still retained some of their US-trained tactics versus the Iraqis, who relied on Soviet-style tactics.
The pilots they have today are more ideologues than pilots, and what training they get is, as mentioned before, from the Soviets and Chinese. This does not bode well for the Iranians if they want to tangle with the Navy and Air Force.
-
Which means, against a flight of F-16s or F-18s (since Lord Ø feels the US Air Force should tie one arm behind it's back when fighting the rest of the world, and NOT have the F-22 replace the ancient F-15s in the inventory) they'll go down like MiG-21s or MiG-23s. By the numbers.
I am upset that our Air Force (our smartest and arguably most important military branch) are not properly equipped with more F-22.
We can blame Robert Gates and congress for this. The head of the Air Force now is a C-130 pilot. I don't want a former C-130 pilot running our air force, a bomber or fighter pilot should be in charge. Apparently Robert Gates fails to see countries like China and North Korea as a serious threat.
We cannot deter a large threat like China or North Korea with a mere 200 F-22 jets.
For a secretary of defense, Robert Gates seems to fail to understand the importance of our air force. I argue that it is our most important branch because without them, we could not clear the way for our marines to go in, or take out nuclear and terrorist sites.
I don't think we will ever bomb Iran, we will probably let Israel do that for us--since they are in direct threat from an Iranian nuclear threat.
Ahmedinjad wants Israel and/or the U.S. to strike Iran to give him an excuse to rally Iranians and Hezbollah to strike everything they have at Israel.
-
F-22s aren't magic, and there is a core truth in Baruch's comment in that the combat avionics and weapons systems, and the pilot's capability with them, determine the outcome much more than airframes do. The airframe is a factor, but not the biggest of the three. Stealth capabilities of the F-22 are nice, but icing on the cake against Iranian or Iraqi type air defense arrays, and tits on a boar hog in Afghanistan.
Air Force the most important? In some phase of battle, any branch is the "Most important," and by the same token in others, the least important. Really when up against a third world opponent, the Air Force and Naval Air capabilities are the ones that are under the least stress; losses may be higher by a dozen or two to achieve the same ends; on the ground, if the gear isn't up to date, losses can be higher by hundreds or even thousands.
Basically we could have fought Iraq with F4s and beat them without slowing down the ground war at all, but there would have been a few more aircraft lost.
-
(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7818/tehran.jpg)
Municipal Improvement Project
-
F-22s aren't magic, and there is a core truth in Baruch's comment in that the combat avionics and weapons systems, and the pilot's capability with them, determine the outcome much more than airframes do. The airframe is a factor, but not the biggest of the three. Stealth capabilities of the F-22 are nice, but icing on the cake against Iranian or Iraqi type air defense arrays, and tits on a boar hog in Afghanistan.
Air Force the most important? In some phase of battle, any branch is the "Most important," and by the same token in others, the least important. Really when up against a third world opponent, the Air Force and Naval Air capabilities are the ones that are under the least stress; losses may be higher by a dozen or two to achieve the same ends; on the ground, if the gear isn't up to date, losses can be higher by hundreds or even thousands.
Basically we could have fought Iraq with F4s and beat them without slowing down the ground war at all, but there would have been a few more aircraft lost.
I agree that the Air Force becomes a little less important when fighting 3rd world countries. But still, if there is a 100 taliban fighters and you only got 20 marines, it's better to hit with them some A10's before going in--just so we wont have even one casualty.
When dealing with countries like north korea and china, air is the first fight. You must clear the air and ground or else.
-
As was siad before the Pilots do make alot of differance. One thing though is that even the lowly F-5 isn't exactly a dog in A2A combat. TOp GUN and RED FLAG had used the F-5 aircraft for many years and alot of young LT s learned the hard way that the F-5 can ruin your day.
-
As was siad before the Pilots do make alot of differance. One thing though is that even the lowly F-5 isn't exactly a dog in A2A combat. TOp GUN and RED FLAG had used the F-5 aircraft for many years and alot of young LT s learned the hard way that the F-5 can ruin your day.
The F-5 and variants actually serve (or did) as front line fighters in a number of nations. I think countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico etc.
The variant used in Mexico is called the Tiger Shark?
-
The F-5 and variants actually serve (or did) as front line fighters in a number of nations. I think countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico etc.
The variant used in Mexico is called the Tiger Shark?
The F5G Tiger Shark ll was really a pretty bad machine. A cheap hot rod that was short the electronic gadgets of the F15 and F16.
edit to add:
F5 and F20 history with Peanut brain Carter and dirty politics. Saw some film back in the 80's with retired AF FIL....despite what they say the F20 could hold it's own against anything of it's day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-20_Tigershark
-
The F5G Tiger Shark ll was really a pretty bad machine. A cheap hot rod that was short the electronic gadgets of the F15 and F16.
edit to add:
F5 and F20 history with Peanut brain Carter and dirty politics. Saw some film back in the 80's with retired AF FIL....despite what they say the F20 could hold it's own against anything of it's day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-20_Tigershark
(http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/3893/f20firingamissile.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/F-20_firing_a_missile.jpg)
Sounds pretty good actually
-
We have a wiring schematic of an F-20 framed on the wall in my office. I have no clue why. I'll snap a pic of it tomorrow.
-
For those of us that like to look into what was or may have been or is still secret when it comes to military gear a good site to go to is this one.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php
Some of the posters there have worked in aviation.
-
I agree that the Air Force becomes a little less important when fighting 3rd world countries. But still, if there is a 100 taliban fighters and you only got 20 marines, it's better to hit with them some A10's before going in--just so we wont have even one casualty.
When dealing with countries like north korea and china, air is the first fight. You must clear the air and ground or else.
I get the impression you haven't ever actually been an officer in any branch of service, no disrespect intended. Really, your theoretical 20 Marines make a piss-poor argument for a plane like the Raptor that's so costly you'd have to scrap about a squadron of A-10s to afford to buy each extra F-22, and for a mission that a plane a lot less capable than an A-10 could handle for that matter.
When you figure out how to get airplanes to hold ground or persuade local chieftains to support you and rat out the insurgents, be sure to let the Air Staff know, they've been desperately and unsuccessfully looking for that strategy since the days of Billy Mitchell.
******
On the F5/F20 - great planes, the line led eventually to the Hornet by way of a Northrop project plane based on a beefed-up version of them, so in an indirect way Northrop had the last laugh because the F16 overseas sales never took off the way it was expected they would, but the F-18 did pretty well (The rugged carrier-style landing gear and safety of two engines were big advantages over the Falcon with allied air forces who foresaw operating them in austere conditions).
-
For those of us that like to look into what was or may have been or is still secret when it comes to military gear a good site to go to is this one.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php
Some of the posters there have worked in aviation.
interesting site
-
I get the impression you haven't ever actually been an officer in any branch of service, no disrespect intended. Really, your theoretical 20 Marines make a piss-poor argument for a plane like the Raptor that's so costly you'd have to scrap about a squadron of A-10s to afford to buy each extra F-22, and for a mission that a plane a lot less capable than an A-10 could handle for that matter.
When you figure out how to get airplanes to hold ground or persuade local chieftains to support you and rat out the insurgents, be sure to let the Air Staff know, they've been desperately and unsuccessfully looking for that strategy since the days of Billy Mitchell.
You may have taken my statements out of context.
The way I look at the air force is that it is a deterrent towards major military threats like North Korea and China.
With threats like that -our fighter pilots, bombers, and missile defenses become our primary weapon. With ground troops doing the clean up and holding ground.
With an insurgent/urban warfare --the air force takes on a different role which is based mostly on supply lines, surgical air strikes
with Specter Gunships and A10's, and reconassiance with predator drones. It becomes a supportive combat role--but still a very important supportive combat.
I don't think we disagree here.
Even in an urban messy warfare like Iraq, the Air Force has the important role of finding and dismantling I.E.D's. A very dangerous job and #1 most important combat supportive role since I.E.D.'s are the number one killer of U.S. ground troops.
If for some reason an international incident brought China or North Korea to declare war on us, I guarantee we would have been grateful that we bought a few extra hundred more F-22 Raptors. In a war like that, if we could not secure air dominance, we would already lose the war. As powerful as our marines, soldiers, and special forces are--they will be facing a million Asian infantry in each scenario. We can at least do them a favor and bomb the enemy to reduce American casualties.
Our air dominance assures our military safety when we cannot be everywhere at once. Do we really have the time or interest to invade countries like Libya and Somalia? Nope, unless they attacked us, it is just better to just bomb them to the stone age without putting a single trooper on the ground with exception of special forces.
When I say that our Air Force is our smartest and arguably most important branch , that doesn't mean they are our best branch.
And I finally want to add that the Air Force has been saying for years that they do not have enough F-22 Raptors.
Why stop production of them? Why did we stop production of the comanche helicopter?
Are we supposed to shut down programs of buying the most advanced weapons available?
We can buy just a couple at a time, we don't have to shut down buying them all together!
Also want to add that I was willing to join the air force as either a commissioned officer( if I got accepted--I have a BFA in Fine Arts) or enlist. But I have a serious medical condition preventing me from joining. They won't take me, even if I took meds.
-
Mustang, the questions you ask about those decisions are intuitive and straightforward, but the answers are very complex and I have to say involve a thunderingly-boring level of complexity in explaining the way DOD decision-making works, even when it's working right.
Basically there is a limited budget that has to be split out among all the services. Another half-dozen Raptors really may not be a good value versus an assault ship for the sea services to deploy an MEU, or filling a Stryker brigade for the Army...or it might be better. There is a large geopolitical threat analysis process every year which produces a national defense analysis and continuing intelligence analyses in both the military and diplomatic arenas that are supposed to enter into it pretty heavily...but it would be childishly naive to say that politics and policy biases in both the legislative and executive branches don't influence the product. These allocation decisions are painful and it has to be said involve some level of interservice politics and horse-trading within DOD, though ultimately the cap of the process is the SecDef himself, and his strength and vision directly affect the outcome. Rumsfeld for instance was infamous for never meeting an aerospace program he didn't like, which worked out well for the carrier Navy, the boomers, and the Air Force, but led to a completely jacked-up misadventure in Iraq because he neither liked nor understood anything involving people, which is the lifeline of the Army and Marines, unlike the other services which are primarily about people supporting equipment rather than equipment supporting people.
Complicating this is that for incredibly expensive low-density items like ships, B-2s, F-22s, etc. the unit cost is a moving picture. News reports often say things like "200 million per aircraft" but it doesn't really work that way, the unit cost depends entirely on the production run, a small order of a type in 2010 could cost more than twice the unit cost of a main production run that ended in 2008, even after adjusting for inflation. The air services have a long history of viewing this as an acceptable cost to keep a production line open for spares and replacement aircraft, which while it is very expensive case-by-case, does make a lot of sense strategically. In fact this is where the legendary $400 hammer/toilet seat whatever come from, basically either Government waste or a necessary way to keep the manufacturer alive and supplying spares in the long years between new orders, depending on your point of view.
Layered onto this is the fact that after all the good or bad decision-making in DOD, Congress has total control of the budget and can arbitrarily drop, add, or restrict funding for any particular reason they feel like, and often does exercise that power either as earmarks, amendments in committee, or semi-secretive mark-ups conference. Most well-known is their penchant for buying something the DOD didn't ask for, like an additonal dozen aircraft of a type, possibly stretching out the delivery time as well, and usually so that jobs or at least money flows to the constituency of some powerful Congressman or Senator. The same thing applies to things like basing decisions, which also mean a lot of money for some constituency. Nor are these additional goodies necessarily just additional spending slapped on by a spendthrift Congress, they may involve complementary cuts in something the the services actually did regard as necessary. The process for a service to actually go to Congress and fight to keep such a program depends as much on political issues as objective ones, meaning both DOD internal politics, Adminstration internal politics, and Congressional internal politics and external grandstanding for the voters as well.
After the DOD finishes whatever