User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:01:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree we need to put in Poland: Abrams Bradleys Apaches A shit load of 11M grunts A-10s Paladins Lance surface to surface nuclear missiles Tomahawk surface to surface nuclear missiles The days of COIN are over it is back to heavy maneuver mechanized on the WW3 European battlefield! I wonder if there is an SR-71 that is still operational. Or if we have something else that we don't know about.. that is super fast and 'invisible' to radar. Sneak over to Moscow.. drop the biggest nuke that we have... Bam bye bye Putin and Russia.. The world would be better, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:08:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if there is an SR-71 that is still operational. Or if we have something else that we don't know about.. that is super fast and 'invisible' to radar. Sneak over to Moscow.. drop the biggest nuke that we have... Bam bye bye Putin and Russia.. The world would be better, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree we need to put in Poland: Abrams Bradleys Apaches A shit load of 11M grunts A-10s Paladins Lance surface to surface nuclear missiles Tomahawk surface to surface nuclear missiles The days of COIN are over it is back to heavy maneuver mechanized on the WW3 European battlefield! I wonder if there is an SR-71 that is still operational. Or if we have something else that we don't know about.. that is super fast and 'invisible' to radar. Sneak over to Moscow.. drop the biggest nuke that we have... Bam bye bye Putin and Russia.. The world would be better, right? LOL. Ever hear of the Dead Hand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:21:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL. Ever hear of the Dead Hand? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree we need to put in Poland: Abrams Bradleys Apaches A shit load of 11M grunts A-10s Paladins Lance surface to surface nuclear missiles Tomahawk surface to surface nuclear missiles The days of COIN are over it is back to heavy maneuver mechanized on the WW3 European battlefield! I wonder if there is an SR-71 that is still operational. Or if we have something else that we don't know about.. that is super fast and 'invisible' to radar. Sneak over to Moscow.. drop the biggest nuke that we have... Bam bye bye Putin and Russia.. The world would be better, right? LOL. Ever hear of the Dead Hand? Lets just hope they didn't flip the switch yet 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:29:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The A-10 is just barely survivable against an air defense on the level of Iraq's in 2003. Against modern Russian air defenses, the A-10 would be flying one way missions. It is a good aircraft for CAS in permissive environments. Otherwise, it doesn't bring much to the table. So it actually makes sense to retire that aircraft, which is only useful in certain situations, and use the money saved to put toward more modern aircraft that can survive in even the most high threat areas. The F-35 will have plenty of ability to bust Russian tanks from considerable distances and survive to kill again, while keeping their pilots safe. The bold part really isn't true. Is it one of the better shitty options the USAF has? Yes. Is it good? Not really. Are there better for cheaper? Absolutely. F-35 for CAS. 
How in the blue fuck does an F35 even find a tank? Keep in mind I've been on the ground making a figure eight in the sky with an IZLID in the middle of 6 vehicles shooting at 2 other vehicles, one of which was on fire... F16 couldn't find ANY of us for 20 minutes. In another instance they identified a 25 ton bradley fighting vehicle as a possible enemy IED. Is there any benefit to F35 other than pilot safety? Because you know the safest thing is to stay in moms basement. In wars where people actually fight, things get blown up and people die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:31:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. Whoa...let me guess you were late to the whole GWOT thing, right? Because The Polish were right there with us in Iraq...they owned MND-Center South in Iraq...and they helped during the invasion as well. However, their economy couldn't support a decade long war so they had to go home about three years in...that goes for the Georgians as well...I'll see if I can't find a news article about the Polish that died in attacks in Babylon... linky |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:33:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if there is an SR-71 that is still operational. Or if we have something else that we don't know about.. that is super fast and 'invisible' to radar. Sneak over to Moscow.. drop the biggest nuke that we have... Bam bye bye Putin and Russia.. The world would be better, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree we need to put in Poland: Abrams Bradleys Apaches A shit load of 11M grunts A-10s Paladins Lance surface to surface nuclear missiles Tomahawk surface to surface nuclear missiles The days of COIN are over it is back to heavy maneuver mechanized on the WW3 European battlefield! I wonder if there is an SR-71 that is still operational. Or if we have something else that we don't know about.. that is super fast and 'invisible' to radar. Sneak over to Moscow.. drop the biggest nuke that we have... Bam bye bye Putin and Russia.. The world would be better, right? Even if you could instantaneously annihilate 1/2 a continent, and wanted to, they still have nuc Subs in the water and bombers in the Air. It's almost like this whole mutually assured destruction thing has been thought out and rehearsed for 60 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:35:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whoa...let me guess you were late to the whole GWOT thing, right? Because The Polish were right there with us in Iraq...they owned MND-Center South in Iraq...and they helped during the invasion as well. However, their economy couldn't support a decade long war so they had to go home about three years in...that goes for the Georgians as well...I'll see if I can't find a news article about the Polish that died in attacks in Babylon... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. Whoa...let me guess you were late to the whole GWOT thing, right? Because The Polish were right there with us in Iraq...they owned MND-Center South in Iraq...and they helped during the invasion as well. However, their economy couldn't support a decade long war so they had to go home about three years in...that goes for the Georgians as well...I'll see if I can't find a news article about the Polish that died in attacks in Babylon... I'm well aware of their presence, but not the size. I was guessing about one Brigade? We have more than that in Europe now. So... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:43:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Poland is a great country. Been there done that.
I would fight for Poland if I could volunteer! Beautiful women, and country. Great food and beer. The techno disco clubs will make u think your there for an hour, next thing you know, your walking out of the club and the sun is rising! My advice, bring Mickey Mouse gloves, and allergies pills as an American an the women will fall all over your. Just tell them the allergy pill is x! Hahahaha |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:45:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm well aware of their presence, but not the size. I was guessing about one Brigade? We have more than that in Europe now. So... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. Whoa...let me guess you were late to the whole GWOT thing, right? Because The Polish were right there with us in Iraq...they owned MND-Center South in Iraq...and they helped during the invasion as well. However, their economy couldn't support a decade long war so they had to go home about three years in...that goes for the Georgians as well...I'll see if I can't find a news article about the Polish that died in attacks in Babylon... I'm well aware of their presence, but not the size. I was guessing about one Brigade? We have more than that in Europe now. So... MND=Multi-National Division... they had a Division Plus size element there. And for their Army, it was almost half their active duty ground forces...they don't exactly have a huge standing Army...they were good peeps...they even laughed at Pollock jokes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:02:13 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm in my 30's, so the cold war was before my time. I'm not criticizing what we did then. I'm suggesting that returning to those glory days is a retarded concept. Europe's economy has had ample opportunity to rebuild. Ours is declining. We face an actual threat that we have not yet figured out how to definitively defeat. Maybe we should focus more on our own security threats than the threats that primarily oppose our allies who have existed under the defense umbrella paid for by the US for 70 years. Russia can't really threaten US vital interests as long as we have Nukes. If we really want to protect Poland, we can do it from Montana. Obama even has a red phone he can pick up and tell Putin that himself. What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree we need to put in Poland: Abrams Bradleys Apaches A shit load of 11M grunts A-10s Paladins Lance surface to surface nuclear missiles Tomahawk surface to surface nuclear missiles The days of COIN are over it is back to heavy maneuver mechanized on the WW3 European battlefield! Cold/imaginary wars against threats who have killed no one, where you spend American money defending foriegners and award the highest PT score. Way more useful than wars against threats that have killed thousands of your people, are hard to find/fix and don't require cool hardware. Just ignore the terrorists, I'm sure they will go away or we'll just settle our differences with words. Worked really good in the late 90's under Clinton. -Sincerely, every defense manufacturing Company ever. PS We didn't really mean never forget. We meant wait at least 10 years after the American flag and yellow bumper sticker on your car wear out to forget. I take it that the Cold War was before your time? Where would we be now if we hadn't fought and won the Cold War? We would probably be much worse off. Think about what would have happened if after WW2 we had told Europe " Well guys we have had enough. We defeated Germany for you now we are taking our ball and going home. Don't worry about all those Russians, they said they would play nice and leave all you guys alone." The Soviets would have taken Europe in a heartbeat. They would have not stopped there either. Soon we would have been isolated with no allies. No trading partners. Where would that leave us? I'm in my 30's, so the cold war was before my time. I'm not criticizing what we did then. I'm suggesting that returning to those glory days is a retarded concept. Europe's economy has had ample opportunity to rebuild. Ours is declining. We face an actual threat that we have not yet figured out how to definitively defeat. Maybe we should focus more on our own security threats than the threats that primarily oppose our allies who have existed under the defense umbrella paid for by the US for 70 years. Russia can't really threaten US vital interests as long as we have Nukes. If we really want to protect Poland, we can do it from Montana. Obama even has a red phone he can pick up and tell Putin that himself. What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. The Poles were in Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:03:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent...  Until fucking GO-1 ruins it.  This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:04:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't you already sign your VolSep paperwork? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sweet, I wanted to see what the Cold War service was like and now I got my chance! Didn't you already sign your VolSep paperwork? We don't talk about that anymore...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:05:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't they deploy their special forces (GROM) to help us out? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn't they deploy their special forces (GROM) to help us out? That and more. Are still in Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:06:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Menachim Begin or Le Duc Tho? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Trivia Time! What noble peace prize winner holds the record for most wars started and people killed by drones? Menachim Begin or Le Duc Tho? Whoa....double points for the Le Duc Tho reference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:08:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MND=Multi-National Division... they had a Division Plus size element there. And for their Army, it was almost half their active duty ground forces...they don't exactly have a huge standing Army...they were good peeps...they even laughed at Pollock jokes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. Whoa...let me guess you were late to the whole GWOT thing, right? Because The Polish were right there with us in Iraq...they owned MND-Center South in Iraq...and they helped during the invasion as well. However, their economy couldn't support a decade long war so they had to go home about three years in...that goes for the Georgians as well...I'll see if I can't find a news article about the Polish that died in attacks in Babylon... I'm well aware of their presence, but not the size. I was guessing about one Brigade? We have more than that in Europe now. So... MND=Multi-National Division... they had a Division Plus size element there. And for their Army, it was almost half their active duty ground forces...they don't exactly have a huge standing Army...they were good peeps...they even laughed at Pollock jokes. Well aware of the MND thing... Especially the meaning of Multi National...So yeah the info I'm finding says they had about 2,500 on the ground. Sure they were in charge of a Division size element, but didn't have that many people there. 2,500 is less than one Army BCT. And it's way less than what we currently have in Europe. WAY WAY less than what we've had in Europe in the almost 70 years since WWII. Maybe the French want to kick start their war machine again? Or if they prefer to keep the 30 hour work weeks, fine by me. Start studying your Russian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:08:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't they deploy their special forces (GROM) to help us out? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn't they deploy their special forces (GROM) to help us out? More than that. They had the third-largest commitment to Iraq in 2003, after the US and GBR. This was much-belittled by most of the media though (I remember in particular a Daily Show bit where the host did a "The classic 1-2 punch of Great Britain....Poland?  ").
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:09:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Poles were in Afghanistan and Iraq. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree we need to put in Poland: Abrams Bradleys Apaches A shit load of 11M grunts A-10s Paladins Lance surface to surface nuclear missiles Tomahawk surface to surface nuclear missiles The days of COIN are over it is back to heavy maneuver mechanized on the WW3 European battlefield! Cold/imaginary wars against threats who have killed no one, where you spend American money defending foriegners and award the highest PT score. Way more useful than wars against threats that have killed thousands of your people, are hard to find/fix and don't require cool hardware. Just ignore the terrorists, I'm sure they will go away or we'll just settle our differences with words. Worked really good in the late 90's under Clinton. -Sincerely, every defense manufacturing Company ever. PS We didn't really mean never forget. We meant wait at least 10 years after the American flag and yellow bumper sticker on your car wear out to forget. I take it that the Cold War was before your time? Where would we be now if we hadn't fought and won the Cold War? We would probably be much worse off. Think about what would have happened if after WW2 we had told Europe " Well guys we have had enough. We defeated Germany for you now we are taking our ball and going home. Don't worry about all those Russians, they said they would play nice and leave all you guys alone." The Soviets would have taken Europe in a heartbeat. They would have not stopped there either. Soon we would have been isolated with no allies. No trading partners. Where would that leave us? I'm in my 30's, so the cold war was before my time. I'm not criticizing what we did then. I'm suggesting that returning to those glory days is a retarded concept. Europe's economy has had ample opportunity to rebuild. Ours is declining. We face an actual threat that we have not yet figured out how to definitively defeat. Maybe we should focus more on our own security threats than the threats that primarily oppose our allies who have existed under the defense umbrella paid for by the US for 70 years. Russia can't really threaten US vital interests as long as we have Nukes. If we really want to protect Poland, we can do it from Montana. Obama even has a red phone he can pick up and tell Putin that himself. What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. The Poles were in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Token is a Southpark character.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:09:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What in the world. Also, lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
What in the world. Also, lol Polandball. Polan is can into NATO? US can help Polan with stopping of the Russia tank? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:16:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't you already sign your VolSep paperwork? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sweet, I wanted to see what the Cold War service was like and now I got my chance! Didn't you already sign your VolSep paperwork? Got fucking denied! Goodbye $64K 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:17:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bold part really isn't true. Is it one of the better shitty options the USAF has? Yes. Is it good? Not really. Are there bettjavascript:video();er for cheaper? Absolutely. F-35 for CAS.
How in the blue fuck does an F35 even find a tank? Keep in mind I've been on the ground making a figure eight in the sky with an IZLID in the middle of 6 vehicles shooting at 2 other vehicles, one of which was on fire... F16 couldn't find ANY of us for 20 minutes. In another instance they identified a 25 ton bradley fighting vehicle as a possible enemy IED. Is there any benefit to F35 other than pilot safety? Because you know the safest thing is to stay in moms basement. In wars where people actually fight, things get blown up and people die. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The A-10 is just barely survivable against an air defense on the level of Iraq's in 2003. Against modern Russian air defenses, the A-10 would be flying one way missions. It is a good aircraft for CAS in permissive environments. Otherwise, it doesn't bring much to the table. So it actually makes sense to retire that aircraft, which is only useful in certain situations, and use the money saved to put toward more modern aircraft that can survive in even the most high threat areas. The F-35 will have plenty of ability to bust Russian tanks from considerable distances and survive to kill again, while keeping their pilots safe. The bold part really isn't true. Is it one of the better shitty options the USAF has? Yes. Is it good? Not really. Are there bettjavascript:video();er for cheaper? Absolutely. F-35 for CAS.
How in the blue fuck does an F35 even find a tank? Keep in mind I've been on the ground making a figure eight in the sky with an IZLID in the middle of 6 vehicles shooting at 2 other vehicles, one of which was on fire... F16 couldn't find ANY of us for 20 minutes. In another instance they identified a 25 ton bradley fighting vehicle as a possible enemy IED. Is there any benefit to F35 other than pilot safety? Because you know the safest thing is to stay in moms basement. In wars where people actually fight, things get blown up and people die. In the A-10, the pilot basically relies on his eyeballs to locate a target. The F-35 has the type of senors that totally blows away any capabilities the A-10 or legacy fighters like the F-16 possess. How do they find a tank you ask? Watch this. And skip to about 1:38 for the specific answer to this question. Not only will the F-35's systems allow you to find tanks, but classify and ID them with a high degree of accuracy. And it allows you to do so without directly overflying the enemy at 200 feet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:18:50 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:32:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got fucking denied! Goodbye $64K Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sweet, I wanted to see what the Cold War service was like and now I got my chance! Didn't you already sign your VolSep paperwork? Got fucking denied! Goodbye $64K Hello $2M. retirement, how does it work? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:34:55 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hello $2M. retirement, how does it work? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sweet, I wanted to see what the Cold War service was like and now I got my chance! Didn't you already sign your VolSep paperwork? Got fucking denied! Goodbye $64K Hello $2M. retirement, how does it work? Keep your eye on the prize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:50:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't really a missile kind of issue. If missiles start getting lobbed across the Atlantic, we have bigger issues. Better dig out all my old Deathlands books to learn how to survive the apocalypse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
gee, you think Obie wishes he'd had that missile defense shield in place he denied Poland 4 years ago..  This isn't really a missile kind of issue. If missiles start getting lobbed across the Atlantic, we have bigger issues. Better dig out all my old Deathlands books to learn how to survive the apocalypse. Current Russian doctrine for a war in Eastern Europe against Poland/NATO emphasizes early use of limited nuclear strikes. They figure if they suck at the conventional, stop being conventional. Those in the West have an "apocalypse or nothing" view on nuclear weapons. Russian leadership does not appear to share that view. They view limited, tactical use of nuclear weapons as a valid, legitimate and equalizing tool for ground conflict in Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:56:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the A-10, the pilot basically relies on his eyeballs to locate a target. The F-35 has the type of senors that totally blows away any capabilities the A-10 or legacy fighters like the F-16 possess. How do they find a tank you ask? Watch this. And skip to about 1:38 for the specific answer to this question. Not only will the F-35's systems allow you to find tanks, but classify and ID them with a high degree of accuracy. And it allows you to do so without directly overflying the enemy at 200 feet.  http://youtu.be/hzDke56vMiU
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A-10 is just barely survivable against an air defense on the level of Iraq's in 2003. Against modern Russian air defenses, the A-10 would be flying one way missions. It is a good aircraft for CAS in permissive environments. Otherwise, it doesn't bring much to the table. So it actually makes sense to retire that aircraft, which is only useful in certain situations, and use the money saved to put toward more modern aircraft that can survive in even the most high threat areas. The F-35 will have plenty of ability to bust Russian tanks from considerable distances and survive to kill again, while keeping their pilots safe. The bold part really isn't true. Is it one of the better shitty options the USAF has? Yes. Is it good? Not really. Are there bettjavascript:video();er for cheaper? Absolutely. F-35 for CAS.
How in the blue fuck does an F35 even find a tank? Keep in mind I've been on the ground making a figure eight in the sky with an IZLID in the middle of 6 vehicles shooting at 2 other vehicles, one of which was on fire... F16 couldn't find ANY of us for 20 minutes. In another instance they identified a 25 ton bradley fighting vehicle as a possible enemy IED. Is there any benefit to F35 other than pilot safety? Because you know the safest thing is to stay in moms basement. In wars where people actually fight, things get blown up and people die. In the A-10, the pilot basically relies on his eyeballs to locate a target. The F-35 has the type of senors that totally blows away any capabilities the A-10 or legacy fighters like the F-16 possess. How do they find a tank you ask? Watch this. And skip to about 1:38 for the specific answer to this question. Not only will the F-35's systems allow you to find tanks, but classify and ID them with a high degree of accuracy. And it allows you to do so without directly overflying the enemy at 200 feet. http://youtu.be/hzDke56vMiU
I know enough about radar, FMV, and defense acquisitions to call BS on the majority of that. I'd bet $10,000 that a WWII propeller plan can more effectively ID and engage ground targets from a lower altitude. Nice waste of a trillion bucks though. Even if it could ID targets as well or better than an A10. How about loiter time? Amount of munitions? Cost per flight hour? Maintenance? An F35 is a CAS solution just like a motorcycle is a solution to moving a couch. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 11:10:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Current Russian doctrine for a war in Eastern Europe against Poland/NATO emphasizes early use of limited nuclear strikes. They figure if they suck at the conventional, stop being conventional. Those in the West have an "apocalypse or nothing" view on nuclear weapons. Russian leadership does not appear to share that view. They view limited, tactical use of nuclear weapons as a valid, legitimate and equalizing tool for ground conflict in Europe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
gee, you think Obie wishes he'd had that missile defense shield in place he denied Poland 4 years ago.. This isn't really a missile kind of issue. If missiles start getting lobbed across the Atlantic, we have bigger issues. Better dig out all my old Deathlands books to learn how to survive the apocalypse. Current Russian doctrine for a war in Eastern Europe against Poland/NATO emphasizes early use of limited nuclear strikes. They figure if they suck at the conventional, stop being conventional. Those in the West have an "apocalypse or nothing" view on nuclear weapons. Russian leadership does not appear to share that view. They view limited, tactical use of nuclear weapons as a valid, legitimate and equalizing tool for ground conflict in Europe. Or maybe they want us to think that is their policy. I don't think even the Russians are dumb enough to think any type of nuclear strike against us would remain "limited". They might be able to nuke a non-nuclear European country without getting lit up. But if they hit a significant size US unit with a tactical nuke and kill mass numbers of US troops in the process, the amount of scunion that would be brought upon their asses would make the conventional defeat look like the far better option. There's just no way an attack with nuclear weapons can be kept limited in scale. They hit us, we hit them back. Then you get into a tit for tat until finally everything in the arsenal gets thrown at each other. So regardless of what their doctrine calls for, I just can't see the Russians unleashing any type of nuclear weapon on NATO forces, unless NATO is invading Russia proper and they have nothing to lose by using them (which isn't going to happen anyway). To use them sets in motion events that will most likely end in the total destruction of their nation. They won't risk that outcome by employing nuclear weapons against NATO forces defending eastern Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 11:21:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know enough about radar, FMV, and defense acquisitions to call BS on the majority of that. I'd bet $10,000 that a WWII propeller plan can more effectively ID and engage ground targets from a lower altitude. Nice waste of a trillion bucks though. Even if it could ID targets as well or better than an A10. How about loiter time? Amount of munitions? Cost per flight hour? Maintenance? An F35 is a CAS solution just like a motorcycle is a solution to moving a couch. http://www.pakkotoisto.com/attachments/yleinen-keskustelu/112320d1393238267-off-topic-klo-06-00-24-00-_66368116_sofakenyareu10.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A-10 is just barely survivable against an air defense on the level of Iraq's in 2003. Against modern Russian air defenses, the A-10 would be flying one way missions. It is a good aircraft for CAS in permissive environments. Otherwise, it doesn't bring much to the table. So it actually makes sense to retire that aircraft, which is only useful in certain situations, and use the money saved to put toward more modern aircraft that can survive in even the most high threat areas. The F-35 will have plenty of ability to bust Russian tanks from considerable distances and survive to kill again, while keeping their pilots safe. The bold part really isn't true. Is it one of the better shitty options the USAF has? Yes. Is it good? Not really. Are there bettjavascript:video();er for cheaper? Absolutely. F-35 for CAS.
How in the blue fuck does an F35 even find a tank? Keep in mind I've been on the ground making a figure eight in the sky with an IZLID in the middle of 6 vehicles shooting at 2 other vehicles, one of which was on fire... F16 couldn't find ANY of us for 20 minutes. In another instance they identified a 25 ton bradley fighting vehicle as a possible enemy IED. Is there any benefit to F35 other than pilot safety? Because you know the safest thing is to stay in moms basement. In wars where people actually fight, things get blown up and people die. In the A-10, the pilot basically relies on his eyeballs to locate a target. The F-35 has the type of senors that totally blows away any capabilities the A-10 or legacy fighters like the F-16 possess. How do they find a tank you ask? Watch this. And skip to about 1:38 for the specific answer to this question. Not only will the F-35's systems allow you to find tanks, but classify and ID them with a high degree of accuracy. And it allows you to do so without directly overflying the enemy at 200 feet. http://youtu.be/hzDke56vMiU
I know enough about radar, FMV, and defense acquisitions to call BS on the majority of that. I'd bet $10,000 that a WWII propeller plan can more effectively ID and engage ground targets from a lower altitude. Nice waste of a trillion bucks though. Even if it could ID targets as well or better than an A10. How about loiter time? Amount of munitions? Cost per flight hour? Maintenance? An F35 is a CAS solution just like a motorcycle is a solution to moving a couch. http://www.pakkotoisto.com/attachments/yleinen-keskustelu/112320d1393238267-off-topic-klo-06-00-24-00-_66368116_sofakenyareu10.jpg OK then. You know more about the aircraft than the people building, flying and maintaining it. Gotcha.
And as for CAS, while not a perfect solution, it is still equal to or superior to any of the legacy fighters currently in service when it comes to that role. And more importantly, it can actually survive on a modern battlefield against modern defenses. What is your solution? Buy a bunch of prop driven planes? Those might work well when facing guys armed with nothing more than AKs and RPGs. But against anything more advanced, they would be death traps incapable of performing the mission. Why waste money on such obsolete shit that is only useful against goat herders? The next people we have to fight might just possess a degree of capability. We can't field dozens of designs devoted to specific niche missions. So you build the best aircraft you can capable of performing a variety of missions across the entire spectrum of warfare. CAS isn't the only mission in the air battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:25:12 AM EDT
[#28]
No blood for perogies!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:13:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK then. You know more about the aircraft than the people building, flying and maintaining it. Gotcha.
No I just know a lying used car salesman on TV when I see one. That is essentially the video you posted. What if I claim that I'm going to build a hover tank that can destroy all air threats from the ground. Just give me a trillion dollars. Inshallah it will be done.
And as for CAS, while not a perfect solution, it is still equal to or superior to any of the legacy fighters currently in service when it comes to that role. And more importantly, it can actually survive on a modern battlefield against modern defenses. It isn't just an imperfect solution, it isn't a solution. As we already discussed, the best place for the pilot to stay safe is in moms basement. What is your solution? Buy a bunch of prop driven planes? Those might work well when facing guys armed with nothing more than AKs and RPGs. But against anything more advanced, they would be death traps incapable of performing the mission. Why waste money on such obsolete shit that is only useful against goat herders? The next people we have to fight might just possess a degree of capability. We can't field dozens of designs devoted to specific niche missions. So you build the best aircraft you can capable of performing a variety of missions across the entire spectrum of warfare. CAS isn't the only mission in the air battle. We are in a war with goat herders. We have needed a CAS solution for that war for over 10 years. Your argument is about as valid as ditching the P51 in 1943 so we could develop a more advanced fighter to ward off a potential space alien invasion. Who cares about the Nazis. It's the aliens you should really fear. The A-10 costs 15X as much as a propeller aircraft. The F35 will probably end up costing 100X as much. Mass is a principle of war right? You do the math. Instead of ditching 50 A-10s or 200 propeller planes so we can afford one or two more sexy new planes the used car dealer is selling, maybe we should hedge our bets on some known technology that will work against a known threat? Nah that's crazy talk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:24:06 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Current Russian doctrine for a war in Eastern Europe against Poland/NATO emphasizes early use of limited nuclear strikes. They figure if they suck at the conventional, stop being conventional. Those in the West have an "apocalypse or nothing" view on nuclear weapons. Russian leadership does not appear to share that view. They view limited, tactical use of nuclear weapons as a valid, legitimate and equalizing tool for ground conflict in Europe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
gee, you think Obie wishes he'd had that missile defense shield in place he denied Poland 4 years ago.. This isn't really a missile kind of issue. If missiles start getting lobbed across the Atlantic, we have bigger issues. Better dig out all my old Deathlands books to learn how to survive the apocalypse. Current Russian doctrine for a war in Eastern Europe against Poland/NATO emphasizes early use of limited nuclear strikes. They figure if they suck at the conventional, stop being conventional. Those in the West have an "apocalypse or nothing" view on nuclear weapons. Russian leadership does not appear to share that view. They view limited, tactical use of nuclear weapons as a valid, legitimate and equalizing tool for ground conflict in Europe. Well. We figured on nukes and chems back in the 80s, not a whole lot of difference. Fulda was expected to be a toxic hellhole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:32:56 AM EDT
[#31]
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got fucking denied! Goodbye $64K Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sweet, I wanted to see what the Cold War service was like and now I got my chance! Didn't you already sign your VolSep paperwork? Got fucking denied! Goodbye $64K |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:35:16 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't they deploy their special forces (GROM) to help us out? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn't they deploy their special forces (GROM) to help us out? Yes they did. Along with conventional troops and some air assets. I worked with the Pole SF my last 6 months in AFG and they were great guys, good fighters and hate the Russians. I have no problem helping them out if they need it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:36:27 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! DERP! Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:36:53 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yes, Poland would rock! http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab326/jkw3637/poland-girls.jpg MOTHER OF GOD! WE'VE GOT TO SAVE POLAND! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:45:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Do they need 12B's? Ill come back...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:51:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good. If we're not willing to do this then we have no business being in NATO. I'll go with this. American interests end where America is unwilling to put ground troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:04:01 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:04:19 AM EDT
[#38]
I really wish we would get smart in our "war fighting". Rather than sending (or keeping) troops to be cannon fodder in Eastern Europe, we should build the pipeline, remove restrictions on exporting LNG, threaten to and actually build LNG loading facilities, and flood Europe with LNG. Nothing would do more to undercut Pooty Poot than that. Plus, more jobs for our economy. Plus, better exports.
It's a shame we have a retarded ideologue for president. Hell, I'd rather have Frank Underwood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:05:22 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll go with this. American interests end where America is unwilling to put ground troops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good. If we're not willing to do this then we have no business being in NATO. I'll go with this. American interests end where America is unwilling to put ground troops. We already have troops in Europe. A token force just like NATO has sent to support our efforts. So what are we talking about here? Moving a BCT a few Countries East? Seems appropriate. I'll care about sending more when France, UK, Turkey and the rest of NATO have troops in Poland. If Europe doesn't care 0 fucks given. Why should we BRAC again to keep more forces in Europe? Or are we going to cease the cuts? I thought the economy was the biggest threat? I guess I'm confused because we seem to disregard the NSS whenever it is convenient for anyone that isn't named Northrup Grumman. We'd better hurry up and make up our minds. It's not like recruiting and training a division of newbies to replace the combat vets you just laid off is fast or cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:07:14 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really wish we would get smart in our "war fighting". Rather than sending (or keeping) troops to be cannon fodder in Eastern Europe, we should build the pipeline, remove restrictions on exporting LNG, threaten to and actually build LNG loading facilities, and flood Europe with LNG. Nothing would do more to undercut Pooty Poot than that. Plus, more jobs for our economy. Plus, better exports. It's a shame we have a retarded ideologue for president. Hell, I'd rather have Frank Underwood. We are talking about liberating some grade a pussy here from the threat of a tyrant. Quit ruining our masturbatory fantasy with facts and logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:09:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We already have troops in Europe. A token force just like NATO has sent to support our efforts. So what are we talking about here? Moving a BCT a few Countries East? Seems appropriate. I'll care about sending more when France, UK, Turkey and the rest of NATO have troops in Poland. If Europe doesn't care 0 fucks given. Why should we BRAC again to keep more forces in Europe? Or are we going to cease the cuts? I thought the economy was the biggest threat? I guess I'm confused because we seem to disregard the NSS whenever it is convenient for anyone that isn't named Northrup Grumman. We'd better hurry up and make up our minds. It's not like recruiting and training a division of newbies to replace the combat vets you just laid off is fast or cheap. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good. If we're not willing to do this then we have no business being in NATO. I'll go with this. American interests end where America is unwilling to put ground troops. We already have troops in Europe. A token force just like NATO has sent to support our efforts. So what are we talking about here? Moving a BCT a few Countries East? Seems appropriate. I'll care about sending more when France, UK, Turkey and the rest of NATO have troops in Poland. If Europe doesn't care 0 fucks given. Why should we BRAC again to keep more forces in Europe? Or are we going to cease the cuts? I thought the economy was the biggest threat? I guess I'm confused because we seem to disregard the NSS whenever it is convenient for anyone that isn't named Northrup Grumman. We'd better hurry up and make up our minds. It's not like recruiting and training a division of newbies to replace the combat vets you just laid off is fast or cheap. NSS? Lulz. Again, our interests end where our troops are at. If they are in Germany, they end in Germany. If they are in the Baltics, they end in the Baltics. We have just established that Poland is off limits, but the Baltics are free game. Which is better than what we had before. If US troops were in the Ukraine, Russian troops wouldn't be in there now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:13:43 AM EDT
[#42]
Canada is sending 6 CF-18's to start, PPCLI will be joining the party shortly after.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:14:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. 43 Dead over 200 wounded in AFghanistan 23 dead in Iraq. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:39:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm in my 30's, so the cold war was before my time. I'm not criticizing what we did then. I'm suggesting that returning to those glory days is a retarded concept. Europe's economy has had ample opportunity to rebuild. Ours is declining. We face an actual threat that we have not yet figured out how to definitively defeat. Maybe we should focus more on our own security threats than the threats that primarily oppose our allies who have existed under the defense umbrella paid for by the US for 70 years. Russia can't really threaten US vital interests as long as we have Nukes. If we really want to protect Poland, we can do it from Montana. Obama even has a red phone he can pick up and tell Putin that himself. What did Poland do to help in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what you get in return. Don't like it? FOAD. The Cold War was not about defending Europe or anything else. It was about containment. We had to contain the Soviet Union. Noe Russia is going back to their cold war tactics. The only counter to this is to contain them and isolate them militarily and economically thus we must revert to cold war tactics. Moving troops to bases in Poland and the Baltics is the only solution. We don't need the numbers we had all over Europe at the height of the cold war but neither can we ignore the situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:45:17 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll go with this. American interests end where America is unwilling to put ground troops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good. If we're not willing to do this then we have no business being in NATO. I'll go with this. American interests end where America is unwilling to put ground troops. Yup |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:49:40 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Order of Battle initially would be most of the following. U. S. Marine Battalion Landing Team building quickly to a Brigade sized unit. U S Army S F, Ranger Bat. Armor Heavy Brigade, lots of air support. French Foreign Legion Bat +, Brit mixed Brigade probably Green Jackets, Scotts Borderers, Commando Bat. At least 30 of the latest tanks. German reinforced Panzer Brigade. Lots of aircraft. There are already bets among A F Squadrons on a kill count. NATO units will have a great many folks with real combat experience, Russia doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are we to be joined by a British Army of the Vistula and other Western company, or is America the only nation in NATO? pretty much this... Order of Battle initially would be most of the following. U. S. Marine Battalion Landing Team building quickly to a Brigade sized unit. U S Army S F, Ranger Bat. Armor Heavy Brigade, lots of air support. French Foreign Legion Bat +, Brit mixed Brigade probably Green Jackets, Scotts Borderers, Commando Bat. At least 30 of the latest tanks. German reinforced Panzer Brigade. Lots of aircraft. There are already bets among A F Squadrons on a kill count. NATO units will have a great many folks with real combat experience, Russia doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:55:21 AM EDT
[#47]
We need to liberate the hot Polish women...FROM DEY CLOTHES!1!1!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:03:22 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...Current Russian doctrine for a war in Eastern Europe against Poland/NATO emphasizes early use of limited nuclear strikes... Uh huh. Got that from Currentwarineasterneuropeagainstpolandnato.stavka.ru I presume? Russia is not retarded, and understands that there is no such thing as 'limited' nuclear strikes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:05:00 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NSS? Lulz. Again, our interests end where our troops are at. If they are in Germany, they end in Germany. If they are in the Baltics, they end in the Baltics. We have just established that Poland is off limits, but the Baltics are free game. Which is better than what we had before. If US troops were in the Ukraine, Russian troops wouldn't be in there now. Russian troops also tended to be fairly well behaved when they had a few western Heavy Corps right on their border. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:06:12 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need to liberate the hot Polish women...FROM DEY CLOTHES!1!1! http://i61.tinypic.com/fucpci.jpg She's worth dying for 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
