Eurofighter finds F22 weak spot........ - Page 15

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Eurofighter finds F22 weak spot........ (Page 15 of 22)

Posted: 8/4/2012 2:53:16 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:i don't know where you get the info to draw conclusions like that. The AF does no such thing to the fighter pilots wing level and below that actually do the mission. I can't speach to policy makers, I had enough of the bullshit long before I got to that.

In my 16 years in the tactical AF, at the Wing level and below, nobody even reads or cares about AF doctrine. Is it mentioned in PME that everybody flushes as soon as the test is over? Sure. But that is the last we think about doctrine. We get assigned a mission and go out and kick ass. In my day, I wrote a large section of the MCM 3-1 F15 tactics manual and I did not reference AF doctrine. I wrote it based on the threat and our capabilities and weaknesses.

I challlenge you to find an AF fighter pilot that is actively flying a jet, that even knows where to go to read what the AF doctrine is, never mind know it himself. There is no cool aid. You know more about AF doctrine that fighter pilots ( Ltc and below) because AF fighter pilots don't know nor do they care what that doctrine is. We are the primary combatants, we don't get to choose our missions, we just get to perform them.

Shit, everytime I talk about this the first word of their mouth is that I don't know the doctrine. I always assumed they did actually know the doctrine because they defended it so vehemently.

So how can they defend something they know nothing about? And why write it if you don't use it?

I don't know. I don't know the doctrine and never did. Many fighter pilots will insist the sky is green if you tell them it is blue, just to fuck with you, especially if there is beer or whiskey involved. Fighter pilots like conflict. They will make it if it doesn't come naturally.

The AF policy makers might use the doctrine, I don't know. Squadron pilots will stick together even if they know they are wrong, simply for mutual support, against outsiders. It is a very tight group. Maybe that is what you are running into.

The Air combat arena demands maximum flexibility and time critical decision making. We go out with a plan and adapt it to what is presented. It is probably the most autonomous independant fighting we have besides SF. We have our hip pockets full of tricks and then pull them out when needed. CGI and AWACs are advisory, not directive in nature. We do what we need to do to accmplish the mission and we are arrogant enough to make it work.

We are the kind of people that just need to know what direction to point the muzzle, and fuck the doctrine. At least that is my opinion. I used to be compared to a pitbull when in the fight. We plan our missions, but we are given the objectives. How we accomplish our mission is up to us, consistent with the ROE. Doctrine just doesn't matter at that level.

Posted: 8/4/2012 3:10:01 PM EDT

[#2]

Whats interesting is that on the CAS side they always use doctrine as a shield against usefulness and combat effectiveness.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:07:09 PM EDT

[#3]

Why don't you buy more ch47s if there is a lack? Or ask for a bigger rotary bird. It sounds like we have a bitch fest. USAF doesn't want to loose assets to mud fighting and the army wants to blame the USAF for their own faults.

Until anyone figures out the real fight is to the east of the mountains this bitching is pointless.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:09:20 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted: the problem is the air force is only interested in a narrow and almost extinct sub set of limited warfare that coincidently coincides with buying massively expensive single seat super sonic fighters that are never used in the fight they are designed for.

Ya, you're right we should ditch all our A/A assets and but 1,000 Super Tucanos. We haven't had the need to A/A assets in a while, we'll probably never use them again...

Sure we are only interested in just A/A, it's not like we don't train to Strike, Interdiction, SEAD, DEAD, CAS, etc... But don't let the facts get in your way.

If you regard a plea for cost effectiveness as a personal affront then I'm not sure how you'll fare several months from now.

In case you haven't been monitoring the political and economic situation here in the US, the fiscal grim reaper is coming. Regardless of how much our politicians may or may not be willing to cut from the entitlement system, defense spending is going to be the easiest target.

There's bloat and waste everywhere but the other services can point to the programs they've cancelled, the money they've diverted over the years to meet their obvious, critical missions that the government has required of them. The usual arguments and hyperbole aren't going to work and I have a feeling that the AF is going to be in worse trouble than the rest.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:14:20 PM EDT

[#5]

gunsagogo bitches!

Fuck this deficit shit. more rotary for everybody!

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:21:09 PM EDT

[#6]

I like it.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:27:17 PM EDT

[#7]

Well maybe if you didn't hold a trial for the next combat rifle to cancel it a few years later. Or could figure out what fucking designer camo pattern you want then maybe you could funel your budget to address these very needs.

Let's see

Comanche
Upgraded Kiowa
Future solider systems
Acu
G36 body kit assault weapon program
Jcp trials
15,000,000 what does better then a M4 is sand tests
Sgt York

And let's not forget those special euro copters that you only give to guard units and refuse to fly in combat. Great idea.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:35:18 PM EDT

[#8]

At least we cancel most stupid programs.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:36:01 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Snip.

You're board code is so convoluted. I can't actually respond point by point. So let's skip to the heart of the matter.

Here's your problem. You're too emotionally involved. To the point that you are researching air power theory and the history of the USAF to use what you find against them, somehow. Confirmation bias at its worst.

You have some good points, but in trying to somehow prove the USAF is not just corrupt, but evil, you're missing the big picture. Even worse, because you're starting to come off as a loon your valid points are being lost in the noise.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:40:16 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
At least we cancel most stupid programs.

It's not any more then any other service to be honest. You should have killed the Bradley but hey

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:41:41 PM EDT

[#11]

The Commanche was our F35. We cancelled it and that money recapped our whole rotary wing fleet.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:49:03 PM EDT

[#12]

But only after you had dumped millions.

Explain to me how stealth rotary work. Oh you are harder to see on radar but the hadji with a lee enfield can't shoot you as you hover over head. Brilliant

If the USAF won't give you c27s then build more ch47s or build a bigger bird and tell the ghost of general lemay to pound sand since they can't stop you. Honestly I thinks a waste and money would be better suited to unfitting better mills on kiowas so the cowboys don't eat so much grass when high and hot.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:49:31 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
The Commanche was our F35. We cancelled it and that money recapped our whole rotary wing fleet.

Comanche was a single service program. It was also much smaller than F-35. Congress is the key to keeping F-35 alive. I think with sequestration coming, you may see a break in the military-industrial-congressional complex. It's no coincidence the CNO has downplayed the F-35's importance to Naval Aviation.

Posted: 8/4/2012 4:50:11 PM EDT

[#14]

Oh and let's not forget the stryker mgs

Or the failed reason that the only tanks in Helmand were first from the dutch. I guess armor is to good to do the job it was designed to do.

Posted: 8/4/2012 5:06:37 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Snip.

You're board code is so convoluted. I can't actually respond point by point. So let's skip to the heart of the matter.

Here's your problem. You're too emotionally involved. To the point that you are researching air power theory and the history of the USAF to use what you find against them, somehow. Confirmation bias at its worst.

You have some good points, but in trying to somehow prove the USAF is not just corrupt, but evil, you're missing the big picture. Even worse, because you're starting to come off as a loon your valid points are being lost in the noise.

So.
What is the big picture?
'splain it to me.
People are dying over this nonsense. I have seen it. watched it happen. pounded my fists in frustration while it happened knowing how easy we could fix it.

what amazes me is how few seem to give a shit.

Posted: 8/4/2012 5:07:40 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Oh and let's not forget the stryker mgs

Or the failed reason that the only tanks in Helmand were first from the dutch. I guess armor is to good to do the job it was designed to do.

Lack of firepower isn't the problem in Afghanistan.

AS for the bradley, you prefer the 113?

Posted: 8/4/2012 5:20:17 PM EDT

[#17]

I don't have the big picture.

I do know that part of the problem is that the AF promotes people that don't make waves. As a result we get senior leadership that mostly won't change anything especially if it not a popular idea to change. Commanders are more concerned with shiney work boots, no hats in pockets, and retention rates instead of mission effectiveness. At least that is how it was when I was in, somehow I seriously doubt that has changed.

If you are leaning forward, your butt is exposed.

Posted: 8/4/2012 5:29:21 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Oh and let's not forget the stryker mgs

Or the failed reason that the only tanks in Helmand were first from the dutch. I guess armor is to good to do the job it was designed to do.

Lack of firepower isn't the problem in Afghanistan.

AS for the bradley, you prefer the 113?

It clearly is by the whole basis of your strategy. How do instill this fear of crossing the border and dying to stop this war since you refuse to admit the enemy needs Ti be conquered in their home base of Pakistan.

Posted: 8/4/2012 5:44:19 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Oh and let's not forget the stryker mgs

Or the failed reason that the only tanks in Helmand were first from the dutch. I guess armor is to good to do the job it was designed to do.

Lack of firepower isn't the problem in Afghanistan.

AS for the bradley, you prefer the 113?

It clearly is by the whole basis of your strategy. How do instill this fear of crossing the border and dying to stop this war since you refuse to admit the enemy needs Ti be conquered in their home base of Pakistan.

I ain't planning on killing them with tanks that can't move with 120mm HEAT rounds.
I kinda like the idea of 20mm rounds exploding in their little taliban bodies or maybe nailed to a tree by 200 flechettes.
mobility is our problem.

Posted: 8/4/2012 5:59:53 PM EDT

[#20]

So why are there leopards in Helmand and I thought the marines took Abrams with them last go around finally. Why no big green?

Mobility is a problem but it doesn't mean shit till you close, engage and kill the enemy. Invade the tribal areas already.

Posted: 8/4/2012 6:20:38 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
So why are there leopards in Helmand and I thought the marines took Abrams with them last go around finally. Why no big green?

Mobility is a problem but it doesn't mean shit till you close, engage and kill the enemy. Invade the tribal areas already.

Leos in kandahar, too.
Absolutely worthless, though they damaged shit loads of stuff.
tanks mean driving around.
driving around means gettin' blow'd up and dyin'

dying's for fools.
logistics are killing us. tanks need lots of log.
so do very complicated fighter jets.
tanks break through prepared defenses and destroy other tanks. neither are particularly a problem in afghanistan. and god only knows what they would do in P2K.

though a slick idea I heard was as long as we were going to be stuck in isolated cops, put a bradley turret on a connex with a gen set and make sure a 47F could sling it.
that would be handly

Posted: 8/4/2012 6:35:53 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And to mention again, the Su-27 family/MiG-35 family/Eagle/Typhoon/etc can all do a trick the budget-killing Raptor can't: Make more.

Actually, it can do that trick. Lockheed received a contract to preserve all of the production equipment and tooling, and Lockheed Martin and the Air Force said production could be reactivated, if necessary. Smart move, IMHO.

Posted: 8/4/2012 6:49:04 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I don't have the big picture.

I do know that part of the problem is that the AF promotes people that don't make waves. As a result we get senior leadership that mostly won't change anything especially if it not a popular idea to change. Commanders are more concerned with shiney work boots, no hats in pockets, and retention rates instead of mission effectiveness. At least that is how it was when I was in, somehow I seriously doubt that has changed.

If you are leaning forward, your butt is exposed.

Fucking LIKE. This man gets it.

Posted: 8/4/2012 7:09:22 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And to mention again, the Su-27 family/MiG-35 family/Eagle/Typhoon/etc can all do a trick the budget-killing Raptor can't: Make more.

Actually, it can do that trick. Lockheed received a contract to preserve all of the production equipment and tooling, and Lockheed Martin and the Air Force said production could be reactivated, if necessary. Smart move, IMHO.

I'm sure they will dutifully cram tsotchkes and screwdrivers from the production facility into crates, where they will languish until either the Chinese steal them or we throw them away.

No more F-22s will ever be built.

Meanwhile, Sukhoi, Eurofighter, Mikoyan, etc, all keep spanking 'em out. As does Lockheed; just not Raptors. Probably because they have yet to spend 100 billion or so on a 60%-readiness fighter, with 5x higher maintenance costs than than the model its replacing.

Posted: 8/4/2012 7:25:52 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So why are there leopards in Helmand and I thought the marines took Abrams with them last go around finally. Why no big green?

Mobility is a problem but it doesn't mean shit till you close, engage and kill the enemy. Invade the tribal areas already.

Leos in kandahar, too.
Absolutely worthless, though they damaged shit loads of stuff.
tanks mean driving around.
driving around means gettin' blow'd up and dyin'

dying's for fools.
logistics are killing us. tanks need lots of log.
so do very complicated fighter jets.
tanks break through prepared defenses and destroy other tanks. neither are particularly a problem in afghanistan. and god only knows what they would do in P2K.

though a slick idea I heard was as long as we were going to be stuck in isolated cops, put a bradley turret on a connex with a gen set and make sure a 47F could sling it.
that would be handly

Smartest thing you have said. I have also thought we need static defense turrets that are sling able

Posted: 8/4/2012 7:29:12 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So why are there leopards in Helmand and I thought the marines took Abrams with them last go around finally. Why no big green?

Mobility is a problem but it doesn't mean shit till you close, engage and kill the enemy. Invade the tribal areas already.

Leos in kandahar, too.
Absolutely worthless, though they damaged shit loads of stuff.
tanks mean driving around.
driving around means gettin' blow'd up and dyin'

dying's for fools.
logistics are killing us. tanks need lots of log.
so do very complicated fighter jets.
tanks break through prepared defenses and destroy other tanks. neither are particularly a problem in afghanistan. and god only knows what they would do in P2K.

though a slick idea I heard was as long as we were going to be stuck in isolated cops, put a bradley turret on a connex with a gen set and make sure a 47F could sling it.
that would be handly

Smartest thing you have said. I have also thought we need static defense turrets that are sling able

you can't begin to understand how much I have searched for your acceptance.
so, tell me where you were at?

Posted: 8/4/2012 7:36:36 PM EDT

[#27]

I'm not mil, just a scholar of military history.

And my comment about tank support is that non infantry man is going to be upset about tracks being in his AO. Tanks have thermals and 120 HEAT and canister rounds are cheaper then jdams and faster on station. Does it mean it's a end all no, but it helps with that whole combined arms thing.

Posted: 8/4/2012 7:42:29 PM EDT

[#28]

Mk38 mod 2. 25mm bushmaster, just a ballistic shield and the thermal off a crows and slap it on a connex and drop at your local COPs

I bet this would have been tits in the Korangal Valley from hillside to hillside.

Or go all out.

Posted: 8/4/2012 8:07:17 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Mk_38_25mm_Machine_Gun_System.jpgi

Mk38 mod 2. 25mm bushmaster, just a ballistic shield and the thermal off a crows and slap it on a connex and drop at your local COPs

I bet this would have been tits in the Korangal Valley from hillside to hillside.

Or go all out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MK-38_25mm_gun_system.jpg

Actually I often fantasized about having a Bradley turret built into a shipping container there. The biggest problem is finding the enemy. The rocks were all as hot as people all night and its woods and forest during the day. The enemy would always approach us from draws not be exposed at all as they moved into position. A brad turret would just force them to be sneakier further out.
Eta we eventually got a remote control mount that we hooked an m240 up to. 'Robocop' served us well. Thermals were okay...day camera better. Thermals sucked there. Pas13s stayed in their cases.

Posted: 8/4/2012 8:23:05 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Mk_38_25mm_Machine_Gun_System.jpgi

Mk38 mod 2. 25mm bushmaster, just a ballistic shield and the thermal off a crows and slap it on a connex and drop at your local COPs

I bet this would have been tits in the Korangal Valley from hillside to hillside.

Or go all out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/MK-38_25mm_gun_system.jpg

Actually I often fantasized about having a Bradley turret built into a shipping container there. The biggest problem is finding the enemy. The rocks were all as hot as people all night and its woods and forest during the day. The enemy would always approach us from draws not be exposed at all as they moved into position. A brad turret would just force them to be sneakier further out.
Eta we eventually got a remote control mount that we hooked an m240 up to. 'Robocop' served us well. Thermals were okay...day camera better. Thermals sucked there. Pas13s stayed in their cases.

cold enough for thermals, achmed ain't coming out.
achmed ain't no fool.
Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.
25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.
As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Posted: 8/5/2012 9:02:34 AM EDT

[#31]

Damn,
Reckon I am never gonna get told about that big picture.

Posted: 8/5/2012 9:25:23 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not to downplay the accomplishment, but won't the Eurofighter need to find the f22 first?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Yep. Tactic mentioned is common sense. Any bets on how fast we develop a counter-strategy?

I am pretty sure these mock dogfights start at a common rendezvous point. That's not how a real shooting war works.

So why the fancy schmancy school at Miramar?

Dogfights occur - history should tell you that, mate.

Even in modern conflicts.

Vietnam with shitty Falcon A2A missiles and century series proved only that the AF is retarded. Not that dog fighting happens in modern fights.
Modern ineptness is to blame for dog fights.

Depends on the theater, I had a fascinating conversation once with some Israeli pilots who said that, by the time they had launched, they would be close in and personal with their opponents.

Posted: 8/5/2012 10:02:09 AM EDT

[#33]

True.
And I am a huge fan of studying the arab-israeli conflict.
however, as some on here have noted, its unwise to take too many of their lessons and apply it to us.

If we were West Virginia, and at war with Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Ohio, then I might apply the lessons a little differently.

Posted: 8/5/2012 11:01:15 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.

25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.

As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Why not just put a Bradley up there? Dig an emplacement for it if you want a lower profile. Seems to me that the shipping container part is superfluous.

Posted: 8/5/2012 12:02:04 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.
25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.
As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Why not just put a Bradley up there? Dig an emplacement for it if you want a lower profile. Seems to me that the shipping container part is superfluous.

Its not going to move.
that would be like putting an F22 on a flatbed and call it an Air Defense System.
The bradley chassis exists to move the gun system and infantry. If you are doing neither, you don't need it.
A shipping container (or any frame) is just a cheap available life support system for the turret. You can put the gen set in it, a massive fuel tank, and lots of spare ammo.

Posted: 8/5/2012 12:08:39 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.
25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.
As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Why not just put a Bradley up there? Dig an emplacement for it if you want a lower profile. Seems to me that the shipping container part is superfluous.

Its not going to move.
that would be like putting an F22 on a flatbed and call it an Air Defense System.
The bradley chassis exists to move the gun system and infantry. If you are doing neither, you don't need it.
A shipping container (or any frame) is just a cheap available life support system for the turret. You can put the gen set in it, a massive fuel tank, and lots of spare ammo.

SF couldn't get four wheeler's and dirtbikes more than a few feet at a time there. The road is only on one side of the valley. Hell I saw a goat that had fallen and broke its neck. But the view from the OPs would have given a 25mm control of a huge area.
Eta. You can only get whit there if carried on a back or slung under a ch47.

Posted: 8/5/2012 12:13:37 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.

25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.

As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Why not just put a Bradley up there? Dig an emplacement for it if you want a lower profile. Seems to me that the shipping container part is superfluous.

Its not going to move.

that would be like putting an F22 on a flatbed and call it an Air Defense System.

The bradley chassis exists to move the gun system and infantry. If you are doing neither, you don't need it.

A shipping container (or any frame) is just a cheap available life support system for the turret. You can put the gen set in it, a massive fuel tank, and lots of spare ammo.

Well, if the military bureaucracy is like any other, it is generally easier to say "I need to borrow one of those" rather than "I have this new idea you need to approve."

Posted: 8/5/2012 12:21:56 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.
25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.
As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Why not just put a Bradley up there? Dig an emplacement for it if you want a lower profile. Seems to me that the shipping container part is superfluous.

Its not going to move.
that would be like putting an F22 on a flatbed and call it an Air Defense System.
The bradley chassis exists to move the gun system and infantry. If you are doing neither, you don't need it.
A shipping container (or any frame) is just a cheap available life support system for the turret. You can put the gen set in it, a massive fuel tank, and lots of spare ammo.

Well, if the military bureaucracy is like any other, it is generally easier to say "I need to borrow one of those" rather than "I have this new idea you need to approve."

Its common sense, cheap, easy and highly effective.
NO way its going to happen.
the pentagon exists to buy shit, not to fight wars.

Posted: 8/5/2012 12:34:11 PM EDT

[#39]

Why a Bradley turret when you could just buy or borrow navy mk38 turrets? Is there ample spare turrets from Bradleys?

Posted: 8/5/2012 1:18:47 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Why a Bradley turret when you could just buy or borrow navy mk38 turrets? Is there ample spare turrets from Bradleys?

there are divisions worth of bradleys rotting effectively unmaintained in MATES sites around the country.

A bradley gives you a 240 COAX, 25mm and TOW capability and we already have built them. And as cool as remote weapon stations are, I have never seen one give the same SA as a manned station.

Posted: 8/5/2012 2:35:18 PM EDT

[#41]

True but you can run the older man operated mod 1 units too which may not require genpacks

I'm all for something. Drop these things on each hilltop by the border and mine the shit out of the dead zone like east Germany.

Posted: 8/5/2012 4:52:31 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
True but you can run the older man operated mod 1 units too which may not require genpacks

I'm all for something. Drop these things on each hilltop by the border and mine the shit out of the dead zone like east Germany.

the optics and thermals are also of great value.

Posted: 8/5/2012 5:11:38 PM EDT

[#43]

So which senators do we need to start writing too?

Posted: 8/5/2012 5:36:15 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
So which senators do we need to start writing too?

Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, maybe.

We need an intelligent and cheaper DoD.
The vast majority of representatives appear focused on either weakening DoD or fattening it.
I really don't see many interested in truly improving it.

Money makes you stupid, and stupid is expensive. For 70 years we have had the dorfman DoD.
That won't be fixed quickly or easily.
Sequestration could be the opportunity of a generation.
sadly i think it will just make it worse.

Posted: 8/5/2012 5:52:12 PM EDT

[#45]

Make a rough drawing of what you want and pm it to me and I'll fire of some letters this week. Who manufactures the m2s? Is it GD?

Posted: 8/5/2012 6:06:00 PM EDT

[#46]

In the era of missiles fired from 200 miles away we are worried about dogfights? What is this WW2? Eurofighter would mot even see an F-22 coming, and even if it did, no chance...

Posted: 8/5/2012 6:06:50 PM EDT

[#47]

Posted: 8/5/2012 6:45:14 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

In the era of missiles fired from 200 miles away we are worried about dogfights? What is this WW2? Eurofighter would mot even see an F-22 coming, and even if it did, no chance...

That's been said before. Just before the Vietnam War, I believe.

Posted: 8/5/2012 6:52:51 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.
25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.
As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Why not just put a Bradley up there? Dig an emplacement for it if you want a lower profile. Seems to me that the shipping container part is superfluous.

Its not going to move.
that would be like putting an F22 on a flatbed and call it an Air Defense System.
The bradley chassis exists to move the gun system and infantry. If you are doing neither, you don't need it.
A shipping container (or any frame) is just a cheap available life support system for the turret. You can put the gen set in it, a massive fuel tank, and lots of spare ammo.

Fixed fortifications are obsolete at best.

Ask the french how that worked out for them.

Posted: 8/5/2012 6:56:53 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Very, very large and sorta smart E6 was the first guy who mentioned the brad turret in a box concept to me. Sling it unarmored, and then build up sand bags around the box.
25mm in the rocks of korengal would have laid some scunion. better than free gunning 50 cals and 240s off a bipod. plus you still have the TOW. get rid of the old TOW2 MOD zeros.
As long as you are going to be sitting ducks, lets do something with it.

Why not just put a Bradley up there? Dig an emplacement for it if you want a lower profile. Seems to me that the shipping container part is superfluous.

Its not going to move.
that would be like putting an F22 on a flatbed and call it an Air Defense System.
The bradley chassis exists to move the gun system and infantry. If you are doing neither, you don't need it.
A shipping container (or any frame) is just a cheap available life support system for the turret. You can put the gen set in it, a massive fuel tank, and lots of spare ammo.

Fixed fortifications are obsolete at best.

Ask the french how that worked out for them.

The Maginot Line wasn't able to be slung under a chinook. And if we are building bases in remote areas we might want some good defenses

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Eurofighter finds F22 weak spot........ (Page 15 of 22)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us