Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/5/2005 7:56:37 PM EDT
OK, so the Air Force is probably at the head of most of the black projects I would assume. Blackbird, Stealth planes, Aurora, and who knows what other UFO's.

So what the heck does the Navy have (as far as flying goes)?
Is the head Naval people at all concerned and paying attention to all the black projects the Air Force has?

Does the Navy have it's own (aeronautical) black projects or strictly marine-based?
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:15:33 PM EDT

Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:16:40 PM EDT
I C T Y B T I H T K Y
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:19:27 PM EDT
What secret naval aircraft has come to light in the past 50 years? None

Airforce?

U-2, SR-71, Valkirie, B-2, F-117

I don't consider the A-12 to be all that top secret, like the AF projects; its kinda like the F-22, everyone knows we got them.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:22:25 PM EDT

All they do at area 51 is play baseball.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:23:04 PM EDT
Doesn’t the navy have a big base adjacent to the Bermuda Triangle? I bet they are responsible for all of it.

In all seriousness, I would suspect the Navy is probably more concerned with developing top secret submarine warfare type projects.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:36:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By superdav:
All they do at area 51 is play baseball.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/superdavarfcom/area51baseballl.jpg



so thats Google Earth ... nice.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 11:28:48 PM EDT
The Navy gave up that line of work after determining that you could land and launch C-130's on carriers and the eternally famous DASH program.

Rumor has it the C-130 pilot immediately became an alcoholic after the test.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:07:28 PM EDT


Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:12:02 PM EDT

All we know for sure is the Army and Navy are better at keeping secrets.

Shok
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:14:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 12:16:05 PM EDT by KlubMarcus]
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:16:29 PM EDT
The Navy has a top secret, well actually, beyond top secret project involving magnets and... whooppss... I forgot, I wasn't supposed to say anything.



[Project Rainbow]
[Philadelphia Experiment]
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:20:10 PM EDT
Top secret high tech stuff works well in missile silos and air-conditioned hangars.

On a rolling carrier making night traps in salty sea mist.....it pays to be low-tech.

Mark
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:20:33 PM EDT
USN is more interested in super quiet subs, surface projects, etc.

Besides, our Pilots and Aircrew are better so we don't need to develope all the whiz-bang stuff
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:21:11 PM EDT
The navy secret stuff is in their radars and other electronic fire control systems, and the stuff that goes into our subs.

Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:22:29 PM EDT
Are you seriously asking if someone will tell you what secret projects the services have?

Do you really expect an answer?
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:23:08 PM EDT
The Navy has the Super Bug. What else would you need? It's like having Chuck Norris, Vin Diesel, Steven Segall and Jean-Claude VanDamme all rolled into one package!
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:27:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 12:36:58 PM EDT by Dolomite]
The Nav's got way better shit than the zoomies:

You may have seen the movie "Gray Lady Down" with Chuck Heston, but how many subs have Navy DSRVs actually rescued? (0)

How about DOMP (the Deep Ocean Mining Project) and the USNS Glomar Explorer? It did some mining alright.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:33:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By limaxray:
Are you seriously asking if someone will tell you what secret projects the services have?

Do you really expect an answer?




Originally Posted By limaxray:
Are you seriously asking if someone will tell you what secret projects the services have?

Do you really expect an answer?



Duhhhh... no. It's obvious to the world that the Air Force is working on secret projects as far as jets, etc. It's obvious to the world that the Navy is working on secret projects such as underwater vehicles, etc. I'm asking is it known that the Navy works on projects for jets, etc. or do they just strictly let the air force do all of that?

Obviously I don't expect answers about "what" they're working on, but we know of projects such as aurora, or even the JSF which isn't really classified, but does the Navy work on ANYTHING as far as jets go or do they strictly limit themselves to marine vessels?
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:40:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
The Nav's got way better shit than the zoomies:

You may have seen the movie "Gray Lady Down" with Chuck Heston, but how many subs have Navy DSRVs actually rescued? (0)

How about DOMP (the Deep Ocean Mining Project) and the USNS Glomar Explorer? It did some mining alright.



The Glomar Explorer was a Navy ship?
I thought Hughes owned and operated that rig for the CIA?
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:44:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By REALM:

Originally Posted By limaxray:
Are you seriously asking if someone will tell you what secret projects the services have?

Do you really expect an answer?



Duhhhh... no. It's obvious to the world that the Air Force is working on secret projects as far as jets, etc. It's obvious to the world that the Navy is working on secret projects such as underwater vehicles, etc. I'm asking is it known that the Navy works on projects for jets, etc. or do they just strictly let the air force do all of that?

Obviously I don't expect answers about "what" they're working on, but we know of projects such as aurora, or even the JSF which isn't really classified, but does the Navy work on ANYTHING as far as jets go or do they strictly limit themselves to marine vessels?



You'll have to pardon my confusion...when you asked "does the navy have any black projects," the only correct answer is "of course not." By definition, if you knew about it, it wouldn't be black.

Last time I checked the Navy is looking at a carrier version of the JSF, but since the A-12 died about 10 years ago, they haven't been pushing hard for aviation assets. They've settled for turning the Hornet into an aviation Swiss Army knife, with a bunch of different mods to make it do pretty much everything.

Anything else is classified Top Secret, Burn Before Reading, God's Eyes Only.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:44:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
All we know for sure is the Army and Navy are better at keeping secrets.

Shok



Care to check the history of spies caught both in those departments? I can think of several Navy incidents in the past 20 years and several more in the Army 30-40 years ago. Then again the Army really isn't a fair comparison as their technology is typically for the every day soldier, not ICBM's.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:48:55 PM EDT
the AF just spends all the research money to justify their nearly useless existance. (yeah i went there) if it wasnt for their R&D they probably would have been 100% contracted out years ago. theres very few enlisted jobs in the AF that couldnt be done cheaper better and faster by civilian contractors. the benifits to american society from their research programs are immeasureable. hey, maybe they are good for something HAHAHA

<---donning my flame suit
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:54:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
the AF just spends all the research money to justify their nearly useless existance. (yeah i went there) if it wasnt for their R&D they probably would have been 100% contracted out years ago. theres very few enlisted jobs in the AF that couldnt be done cheaper better and faster by civilian contractors. the benifits to american society from their research programs are immeasureable. hey, maybe they are good for something HAHAHA


<---donning my flame suit



Shouldn't you be out there looking for another lost Harrier.
That's the Navy/USMC true stealth aircraft.
Everybody's looking for them.

If it weren't for the USMC safety record, there wouldn't be "safety records".
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 1:42:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTwin60:

Originally Posted By QShok:
All we know for sure is the Army and Navy are better at keeping secrets.

Shok



Care to check the history of spies caught both in those departments? I can think of several Navy incidents in the past 20 years and several more in the Army 30-40 years ago. Then again the Army really isn't a fair comparison as their technology is typically for the every day soldier, not ICBM's.



There was that Walker brother on the Enterprise.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 2:21:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 2:22:33 PM EDT by stickfigure]
The Navy realizes that dropping $200 million dollar aircraft into the ocean is going to get really old, really quick with the American public. They realized that with the F-14 and it's only worth 30 million. The Navy loses way too many aircraft launching and recovering, for it to afford anything bordering on a black project at least as far as aircraft go. And being that they have no real bombing capablity, their airpower contirbution to a war is limited at best. The Harrier's dismal accident ratio's make the F-16 look like a shining star, besides the obvious lack of perfromance.

The Navy's secrets are in it's subs and ships. It's attitude on aircraft is more of a throw away mentality, always has...always will.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 2:37:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
What secret naval aircraft has come to light in the past 50 years? None



That's right. Unlike our blue-suited brethren, we can keep a secret.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:05:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
The Nav's got way better shit than the zoomies:

You may have seen the movie "Gray Lady Down" with Chuck Heston, but how many subs have Navy DSRVs actually rescued? (0)

How about DOMP (the Deep Ocean Mining Project) and the USNS Glomar Explorer? It did some mining alright.



The Glomar Explorer was a Navy ship?
I thought Hughes owned and operated that rig for the CIA?



+1. Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Glomar Explorer?

Thanks,

Merlin
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:52:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 5:55:23 PM EDT by danpass]

Originally Posted By superdav:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?



Guantanamo Bay (eastern tip of Cuba)


edit: www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/nsgtmohome.htm
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 9:33:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
The Nav's got way better shit than the zoomies:

You may have seen the movie "Gray Lady Down" with Chuck Heston, but how many subs have Navy DSRVs actually rescued? (0)

How about DOMP (the Deep Ocean Mining Project) and the USNS Glomar Explorer? It did some mining alright.



The Glomar Explorer was a Navy ship?
I thought Hughes owned and operated that rig for the CIA?



+1. Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Glomar Explorer?

Thanks,

Merlin



Last seen the Glomar Explorer was sitting just east of the Martinez Bridge at the Suisun Bay Marad Inactive Ships Facility with it's towers cut down to fit under the bridge.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:36:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:

Originally Posted By superdav:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?



Guantanamo Bay (eastern tip of Cuba)


edit: www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/nsgtmohome.htm



Not that one, its a small base with a sub port a saw it on the Discovery channel but i cant remember the name I wanted to pull up a pic on Google
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:04:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By superdav:

Originally Posted By danpass:

Originally Posted By superdav:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?



Guantanamo Bay (eastern tip of Cuba)


edit: www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/nsgtmohome.htm



Not that one, its a small base with a sub port a saw it on the Discovery channel but i cant remember the name I wanted to pull up a pic on Google





Anyone?
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:10:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 10:11:57 AM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:



Absolute worst movie I have ever seen. Not my choice to watch it, circumstances dictated it. I want my 2 hours back. It was an absolute insult to my intelligence and would be an insult even to a retard's intelligence. Then again, a retard is a few levels up on the intelligence of the average hollyweirder...
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:13:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
the AF just spends all the research money to justify their nearly useless existance. (yeah i went there) if it wasnt for their R&D they probably would have been 100% contracted out years ago. theres very few enlisted jobs in the AF that couldnt be done cheaper better and faster by civilian contractors. the benifits to american society from their research programs are immeasureable. hey, maybe they are good for something HAHAHA

<---donning my flame suit




Totally agreed. The only "unionized" branch of the armed forces lost their last mission when they were forced to cede the nuclear arsenal to STRATCOM. They should be rewrapped back into the US Army.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:14:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus: www.sonypictures.com/groups/us/documents/image/p7137776.jpg
Absolute worst movie I have ever seen. Not my choice to watch it, circumstances dictated it. I want my 2 hours back. It was an absolute insult to my intelligence and would be an insult even to a retard's intelligence. Then again, a retard is a few levels up on the intelligence of the average hollyweirder...

Whew! I'm glad I didn't see it, but that pic is handy for threads like this. Jamie Fox, playing a fighter pilot?!?! He should stick to comedy.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:15:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 10:17:00 AM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus: www.sonypictures.com/groups/us/documents/image/p7137776.jpg
Absolute worst movie I have ever seen. Not my choice to watch it, circumstances dictated it. I want my 2 hours back. It was an absolute insult to my intelligence and would be an insult even to a retard's intelligence. Then again, a retard is a few levels up on the intelligence of the average hollyweirder...

Whew! I'm glad I didn't see it, but that pic is handy for threads like this. Jamie Fox, playing a fighter pilot?!?! He should stick to comedy.



Count your blessings. I am dumber for having seen it.

The best part of the movie is that Jamie Fox dies...oh and the chick is hot.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:16:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
the AF just spends all the research money to justify their nearly useless existance. (yeah i went there) if it wasnt for their R&D they probably would have been 100% contracted out years ago. theres very few enlisted jobs in the AF that couldnt be done cheaper better and faster by civilian contractors. the benifits to american society from their research programs are immeasureable. hey, maybe they are good for something HAHAHA

<---donning my flame suit




Totally agreed. The only "unionized" branch of the armed forces lost their last mission when they were forced to cede the nuclear arsenal to STRATCOM. They should be rewrapped back into the US Army.



Last I checked USAF still owns two parts of the triad. We gave them up just as much as you gave up the boomers.

Opcon falls to Strat when the shooting starts, until then they stick with the 12th and the mighty 8th.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:18:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 10:21:53 AM EDT by Valkyrie]

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
the AF just spends all the research money to justify their nearly useless existance. (yeah i went there) if it wasnt for their R&D they probably would have been 100% contracted out years ago. theres very few enlisted jobs in the AF that couldnt be done cheaper better and faster by civilian contractors. the benifits to american society from their research programs are immeasureable. hey, maybe they are good for something HAHAHA

<---donning my flame suit





Totally agreed. The only "unionized" branch of the armed forces lost their last mission when they were forced to cede the nuclear arsenal to STRATCOM. They should be rewrapped back into the US Army.



I agree, the also should be on the posters for FW&A... Roll them right back to the Army and be done with it. I despise the USAF as an entity because I have seen how they manipulate, compartmentalize and waaste resources.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:19:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
the AF just spends all the research money to justify their nearly useless existance. (yeah i went there)
<---donning my flame suit



Oh no he di'in't!?!!!

Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:20:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:



Totally agreed. The only "unionized" branch of the armed forces lost their last mission when they were forced to cede the nuclear arsenal to STRATCOM. They should be rewrapped back into the US Army.



Trust me. The Army would fight that tooth and nail.

Well, we WOULD take the A-10's.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:23:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By superdav:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?


What naval base in the carribean?
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:28:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By superdav:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?


What naval base in the carribean?



Its' a secret..

Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:31:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By stickfigure:
The Navy realizes that dropping $200 million dollar aircraft into the ocean is going to get really old, really quick with the American public. They realized that with the F-14 and it's only worth 30 million. The Navy loses way too many aircraft launching and recovering, for it to afford anything bordering on a black project at least as far as aircraft go. And being that they have no real bombing capablity, their airpower contirbution to a war is limited at best. The Harrier's dismal accident ratio's make the F-16 look like a shining star, besides the obvious lack of perfromance.

The Navy's secrets are in it's subs and ships. It's attitude on aircraft is more of a throw away mentality, always has...always will.



Hmmmm...not really. Our A/C are hardly throw-away. In fact they have tons of neat "stuff" to help keep them flying in combat.c

In fact, the Navy's Class "Alpha" type loss ratio for launch and recover events is remarkably low, especially when one considers the flying environment for the Navy aviators. Just as a yardstick, I recommend you go to this site and review the record of the F-16 over the years. F-16 Ultimate Site Scroll down the left to the "Mishap News" and review that. The loss rate is actually very high and much higher than Navy A/C. That said, I REALLY like the F-16 so this is not an anti-USAF bias...just trying to calibrate you a bit.

As far as a "lack of bombing capability", I suggest you join the Navy, get into an aviation rating and deploy on a carrier. Then you would see how many bombing missions we fly. In DS I, the first wave of attack planes ingressing to downtown Baghdad and other targets was comprised of hundreds of Navy planes off of a six-carrier battle force. In fact, I don't have the raw numbers but I suspect there may have been more Navy sorties flown at least at first.

In the WOT, the ONLY bombing support in some cases was from the carriers in the North Arabian Sea, since initially, the USAF had no bases from which to sortie. Treaties were quickly arranged and now we have bases with fine 10,000 ft runways for the AF attack A/C. In the meantime, Navy carriers flew off hundreds of missions against the Taliban in both strategic and tactical missions.

Your military awareness fu is weak.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:33:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By superdav:

Whats the name of that naval base in the carribbean?


What naval base in the carribean?



Its' a secret..



Oh the irony.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:35:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By stickfigure:
The Navy realizes that dropping $200 million dollar aircraft into the ocean is going to get really old, really quick with the American public. They realized that with the F-14 and it's only worth 30 million. The Navy loses way too many aircraft launching and recovering, for it to afford anything bordering on a black project at least as far as aircraft go. And being that they have no real bombing capablity, their airpower contirbution to a war is limited at best. The Harrier's dismal accident ratio's make the F-16 look like a shining star, besides the obvious lack of perfromance.

The Navy's secrets are in it's subs and ships. It's attitude on aircraft is more of a throw away mentality, always has...always will.



Hmmmm...not really. Our A/C are hardly throw-away. In fact they have tons of neat "stuff" to help keep them flying in combat.c

In fact, the Navy's Class "Alpha" type loss ratio for launch and recover events is remarkably low, especially when one considers the flying environment for the Navy aviators. Just as a yardstick, I recommend you go to this site and review the record of the F-16 over the years. F-16 Ultimate Site Scroll down the left to the "Mishap News" and review that. The loss rate is actually very high and much higher than Navy A/C. That said, I REALLY like the F-16 so this is not an anti-USAF bias...just trying to calibrate you a bit.

As far as a "lack of bombing capability", I suggest you join the Navy, get into an aviation rating and deploy on a carrier. Then you would see how many bombing missions we fly. In DS I, the first wave of attack planes ingressing to downtown Baghdad and other targets was comprised of hundreds of Navy planes off of a six-carrier battle force. In fact, I don't have the raw numbers but I suspect there may have been more Navy sorties flown at least at first.

In the WOT, the ONLY bombing support in some cases was from the carriers in the North Arabian Sea, since initially, the USAF had no bases from which to sortie. Treaties were quickly arranged and now we have bases with fine 10,000 ft runways for the AF attack A/C. In the meantime, Navy carriers flew off hundreds of missions against the Taliban in both strategic and tactical missions.

Your military awareness fu is weak.



Some posts here make it sound like the USN still uses ropes and canvas to propel our ships. "Low tech"? These folks can't be serious..
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:40:53 AM EDT
While some comments against the Air Force have been on target, this needs to be made clear.

You will always need our airlift, tankers, fighters, bombers, surveillance, satellites, and missiles.

And our plasma TVs in every office.


Each service plays a vital role in national defense. Don't forget that.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:43:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
While some comments against the Air Force have been on target, this needs to be made clear.

You will always need our airlift, tankers, fighters, bombers, surveillance, satellites, and missiles.

And our plasma TVs in every office.


Each service plays a vital role in national defense. Don't forget that.



USN has all of this minus the plasma TV's and can haul it anywhere in the world in 48 hours.. But sustained operations do require some additional help.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:48:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
While some comments against the Air Force have been on target, this needs to be made clear.

You will always need our airlift, tankers, fighters, bombers, surveillance, satellites, and missiles.

And our plasma TVs in every office.


Each service plays a vital role in national defense. Don't forget that.



USN has all of this minus the plasma TV's and can haul it anywhere in the world in 48 hours.. But sustained operations do require some additional help.



The C-2 does not count as "airlift." And while we're at it, an F-18 with a buddy pack does not a tanker make.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 10:51:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
While some comments against the Air Force have been on target, this needs to be made clear.

You will always need our airlift, tankers, fighters, bombers, surveillance, satellites, and missiles.

And our plasma TVs in every office.


Each service plays a vital role in national defense. Don't forget that.



+1x10^6!
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 11:02:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By stickfigure:
The Navy realizes that dropping $200 million dollar aircraft into the ocean is going to get really old, really quick with the American public. They realized that with the F-14 and it's only worth 30 million. The Navy loses way too many aircraft launching and recovering, for it to afford anything bordering on a black project at least as far as aircraft go. And being that they have no real bombing capablity, their airpower contirbution to a war is limited at best. The Harrier's dismal accident ratio's make the F-16 look like a shining star, besides the obvious lack of perfromance.

The Navy's secrets are in it's subs and ships. It's attitude on aircraft is more of a throw away mentality, always has...always will.



Hmmmm...not really. Our A/C are hardly throw-away. In fact they have tons of neat "stuff" to help keep them flying in combat.c

In fact, the Navy's Class "Alpha" type loss ratio for launch and recover events is remarkably low, especially when one considers the flying environment for the Navy aviators. Just as a yardstick, I recommend you go to this site and review the record of the F-16 over the years. F-16 Ultimate Site Scroll down the left to the "Mishap News" and review that. The loss rate is actually very high and much higher than Navy A/C. That said, I REALLY like the F-16 so this is not an anti-USAF bias...just trying to calibrate you a bit.

As far as a "lack of bombing capability", I suggest you join the Navy, get into an aviation rating and deploy on a carrier. Then you would see how many bombing missions we fly. In DS I, the first wave of attack planes ingressing to downtown Baghdad and other targets was comprised of hundreds of Navy planes off of a six-carrier battle force. In fact, I don't have the raw numbers but I suspect there may have been more Navy sorties flown at least at first.

In the WOT, the ONLY bombing support in some cases was from the carriers in the North Arabian Sea, since initially, the USAF had no bases from which to sortie. Treaties were quickly arranged and now we have bases with fine 10,000 ft runways for the AF attack A/C. In the meantime, Navy carriers flew off hundreds of missions against the Taliban in both strategic and tactical missions.

Your military awareness fu is weak.



Alot of the F-16's class A rate comes from the fact it has only one trash can in the back. The lack of a second engine means that if you lose power, you're pretty much hitting the silk.

But as to your other statements, how do you explain this statement if the AF nad no bases from the begining (even though Diego Garcia has been availible for our use since before Deser Storm):

OEF began on Oct. 7, 2001. Gen. Richard B. Myers, the Air Force officer who had only recently become Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, announced the action. He said, "About 15 land-based bombers, some 25 strike aircraft from carriers, and US and British ships and submarines launching approximately 50 Tomahawk missiles have struck terrorist targets in Afghanistan."


And I was under the impression that the first jets in Desert Storm to fly over Baghdad (one of the most well defended chunks of airspace in the world at the time) were 10 F-117s, not several hundred carrier based jets.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 11:10:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
While some comments against the Air Force have been on target, this needs to be made clear.

You will always need our airlift, tankers, fighters, bombers, surveillance, satellites, and missiles.

And our plasma TVs in every office.


Each service plays a vital role in national defense. Don't forget that.



In todays corporate military, your services could be outsourced by FY07 and the rest would not miss a beat.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top