Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2016, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,630,165 times
Reputation: 1751

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas View Post
What i fear is the next big thing will be Africa.

So many countries literally in civil wars.

The Fund for Peace

Afghanistan is also a colossal failure after all these years.
And that's Africa's problem. Not the US's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2016, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Eastern Washington
17,158 posts, read 56,905,862 times
Reputation: 18462
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
This. F-22 is an amazing plane, by far the best air superiority fighter on the planet... but for dropping JDAMs or SDBs from high altitude in uncontested airspace it is no more effective than an F-15E.
For that matter you could get a B-25 out of a museum and it would do as well. If the enemy does not have air defense or airplanes, anything that will fly over them and carry the desired ordnance is all you need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,205,359 times
Reputation: 14589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post


Every war the United States has ever fought, from the War of Independence to the Civil War to World War II to today, has had rules of engagement. Wars are not conflicts between militaries - they are conflicts between states, in which one of the various tools used to prosecute the conflict is military force.

Were there no rules of engagement, a couple hundred nuclear weapons would end ISIS. But since the catastrophic repercussions of doing so are obvious to the civilian leadership (and, frankly, ever last four-star out there), there is no way that would ever be allowed (even in some alternate reality in which some number of military commanders were delusional enough to advocate such). And what do you call the restriction on nuclear weapons? Rules of engagement.

The idea that there should be no such limits rests on the woeful inability to comprehend the interests of states and the nature of conflicts. It's simplistic, naive, and absurd.
So you took one extreme weapon and built your entire "rules of engagement" on top of it. People notice that but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about dropping flyers warning ISIS tanker drivers before bombing the convoy. Do we HAVE to do that too?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Ft. Myers
19,719 posts, read 16,775,153 times
Reputation: 41862
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
What an overkill. Using billion dollar equipment to bomb ragtags running around in sandals. There's gotta be a cheaper way. Turkey is 50 miles from Raqqa. Good diplomacy would have Turkish army rolled in and flushed them out in a week. We don't have real diplomats anymore.
Wow. You must be a military expert to have that sort of insight !

I have news for you, those "ragtags in sandals" are pretty much the same guys who put those planes into the World Trade Centers, and who are still killing thousands of innocent people all over the world. I don't care how much we spend to send these idiots to their maker, it is too cheap IMO.

Lotsa luck with that Turkey theory too.


Don
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2016, 07:05 PM
 
13,754 posts, read 13,257,395 times
Reputation: 26020
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
Do you want to win the war or follow the user's manual. We've been at this for two years. Billions in flight time and pilots at risk. They still got their capital and the second largest city in Iraq. The lights are on everywhere and gas stations are pumping gas. WTH. This is no way to fight a war.
I want Raptor pilots to be employed. I want the aircraft to be employed/deployed. I want the units that maintain those aircraft to be employed. No guts no glory, baby. Don't worry about our pilots being at risk. They're doing what they love.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 09:23 AM
 
301 posts, read 294,618 times
Reputation: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945 View Post
Wow. You must be a military expert to have that sort of insight !

I have news for you, those "ragtags in sandals" are pretty much the same guys who put those planes into the World Trade Centers, and who are still killing thousands of innocent people all over the world. I don't care how much we spend to send these idiots to their maker, it is too cheap IMO.

Lotsa luck with that Turkey theory too.


Don
It is a waste of money. I don't think you were getting his point. The cost per flying hour of a Raptor is well over $50K which is almost 10 times as much as a more capable air to ground platform like our F-16 fleet or even cheaper and having an enormous loiter time of the Reaper. Using the Raptor means you pay 10 times the price and get way less capability (in this mission).

If it was day 1 of a war with a near-peer nation, you bet the Raptors would be out front, but flying them this way is simply wasteful.

You are correct in saying that they are not stupid. That's why we should be using the most effective platforms we have to ensure we can put the right weapon on the right target as quickly as possible. Without an active targeting pod and the ability to use Laser guided bombs you are stuck using GPS weapons with the Raptor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 09:27 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 3,544,301 times
Reputation: 2207
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtheistAstroGuy View Post
It is a waste of money. I don't think you were getting his point. The cost per flying hour of a Raptor is well over $50K which is almost 10 times as much as a more capable air to ground platform like our F-16 fleet or even cheaper and having an enormous loiter time of the Reaper. Using the Raptor means you pay 10 times the price and get way less capability (in this mission).

If it was day 1 of a war with a near-peer nation, you bet the Raptors would be out front, but flying them this way is simply wasteful.

You are correct in saying that they are not stupid. That's why we should be using the most effective platforms we have to ensure we can put the right weapon on the right target as quickly as possible. Without an active targeting pod and the ability to use Laser guided bombs you are stuck using GPS weapons with the Raptor.
I don't mind them flying Raptors for a couple of hours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,630,165 times
Reputation: 1751
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas View Post
I don't mind them flying Raptors for a couple of hours.
Wasting our taxpayer $$$ and putting our country further into debt (just like the F35 debatable).

The more missions that can be flown by drones, the better. Less of a cost to our government and safer for our soldiers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 09:51 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 3,544,301 times
Reputation: 2207
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17 View Post
Wasting our taxpayer $$$ and putting our country further into debt (just like the F35 debatable).

The more missions that can be flown by drones, the better. Less of a cost to our government and safer for our soldiers.
Well to be honest it seems to me these drones cost more than Raptors

F-35 is already a trainwreck.

With this logic F-16s seem to be the best option.

Still very capable, cheap and effective
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 11:11 AM
 
Location: CT
3,440 posts, read 2,517,333 times
Reputation: 4639
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas View Post
Well to be honest it seems to me these drones cost more than Raptors

F-35 is already a trainwreck.

With this logic F-16s seem to be the best option.

Still very capable, cheap and effective

Drones like the Predator are a fraction of the cost of a Raptor and a fraction of the cost to operate.

The F-35 is only just entering service and is far from a train wreck, they will be far more autonomous than current fighters, and they're effectiveness hasn't been tested. So, no way to know yet if it was a successful strategy or not.

F-16's, and F-18's, really are the fighters of choice in the middle east, aren't they? I suspect at least one of the reasons for giving the F-22 some combat time is to assess it's cost to benefit ratio. In the near future the military is going to go through significant budget cuts and they're going to want to know where to cut.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top