D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
I fought along side them.
I also experienced their predecessor, the M113, hands down the Bradley is an improvement.
an improvement on a worse POS isn't much of a metric of quality.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I fought along side them.
I also experienced their predecessor, the M113, hands down the Bradley is an improvement.
I fought along side them.
I also experienced their predecessor, the M113, hands down the Bradley is an improvement.
Don't panic on these reports. The Israelis have already flown the f-35 into Syria under the nose of the best Russia has, the sa-4.
Edit - Dumb me meant s-400
LOL, I just read this and I was thinking SA-4? That was old when I entered service in '81 lol. Glad you caught yourself.
There are just 4 S-400 systems in Syria: Two at Khmeimim air base in Latakia province, and two at Tartus naval port along the Mediterranean Sea - neither of them close to Israel. I don't think Israel has flown near any of their defensive perimeters.
And when the US launched a missile strike on Syria in April of this year, after dubious allegations of a chemical attack, the US avoided firing any missiles within range of Russia's S-400 systems.
Israel has been panicked over the idea of Russia selling S-300 systems to Syria:
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-...0-systems-to-Syria-major-threat-to-IAF-549837
https://www.newsweek.com/israel-fears-new-russian-weapons-can-reignite-syria-tinderbox-892530
Currently, Syria possesses only S-200 and some other older systems, though with some newer modifications to them. And it was reported last year that one of those S-200 systems shot down an Israeli F-35: https://southfront.org/israel-hiding-state-art-f-35-warplane-hit-syrian-s-200-missile-reports/
LOL, I just read this and I was thinking SA-4? That was old when I entered service in '81 lol. Glad you caught yourself.
ok, fyi- southfront is Russian. Note RU
Domain Name: SOUTHFRONT.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D176142767-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.reg.com
Registrar URL: http://www.reg.com
Updated Date: 2017-12-27T07:29:48Z
Creation Date: 2015-04-30T11:38:20Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-04-30T11:38:20Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 1606
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
I won't take a Russian domain as a credible source for shooting down an F-35 when none has been documented anywhere else. You have contradicted yourself by saying there are and there are not s-400 systems in syria. Maybe there are only four, maybe there are more. The intelligence on this is vague for obvious reasons as the Russians are not going to go around saying anything about this. Since there are russian troops in syria, it hardly matters if Syria or Russia own them. that is irrelevant. Maybe so that the F-35's avoided the s-400, maybe not. no parties involved would ever admit to anything on this. the point here is that the F-35 flew in and out of syrian airspace without a hitch and i bet putin and Assad didn't like it one bit. As far as the retaliation of the chemical attacks, it is well documented that the retaliation was limited ON PURPOSE to the originating air base that those attacks were flow from to avoid escalation. So much for the expensive Russian built surface to air systems that the Russians have put in place.
Are you a Russian bot programmed by Putin promoting fake news or what?
Calling accurate information "fake news" shows a particular quality about yourself - and it isn't flattering. Are you really so fragile that a bit of information that corrects your false assertion must be called 'fake news' pushed by bots programmed by Putin? I think, and hope, that most people just respect correcting information on the basis that it is correcting and accurate. But you appear to be trying to defend a right to post propaganda, and fake news - which your claim definitively was.
Are you perhaps working within the US' massive troll farm program, or what?
an improvement on a worse POS isn't much of a metric of quality.
Nice turnaround on that, quoting the one and ONLY source of an F-35 "shootdown" from a RU registered domain shows your inability to filter the truth from reality.
Even the Mustangs had teething problems. The A variant was under powered at high altitude, the B & C versions had visibility and gun jamming issues. The D is the one most folks think of when they think of the P-51. Of course, the whole P-51 design cycle lasted less then the time it takes to process the paperwork for a change on the F-35. Which is a large part of the problem with the F-35, the design cycle is too long and the number of changes in design is too high. I wonder how many versions of the plane we really have? Not major letter versions but differences in software due to changes being approved and subtle hardware changes due to problems found with the first few off the line.Was this before p 51s ruled the sky?
Even the Mustangs had teething problems. The A variant was under powered at high altitude, the B & C versions had visibility and gun jamming issues. The D is the one most folks think of when they think of the P-51. Of course, the whole P-51 design cycle lasted less then the time it takes to process the paperwork for a change on the F-35. Which is a large part of the problem with the F-35, the design cycle is too long and the number of changes in design is too high. I wonder how many versions of the plane we really have? Not major letter versions but differences in software due to changes being approved and subtle hardware changes due to problems found with the first few off the line.
The M113 was developed by the "Food Machinery Corp". There is a "cannon fodder" joke in here somewhere
I wonder why they went with the Bradley design.
I've always thought the Hagglunds BV206 design type was pretty cool. I also wonder why they added a gun, instead of focusing on just making it a good troop transport vehicle, and leaving the guns to the tanks.
Calling accurate information "fake news" shows a particular quality about yourself - and it isn't flattering. Are you really so fragile that a bit of information that corrects your false assertion must be called 'fake news' pushed by bots programmed by Putin? I think, and hope, that most people just respect correcting information on the basis that it is correcting and accurate. But you appear to be trying to defend a right to post propaganda, and fake news - which your claim definitively was.
Are you perhaps working within the US' massive troll farm program, or what?
The South Front article isn't key to the correction of your previous assertion about Israeli jets and the S-400 system, But still, you could look into South Front's information and think about it for yourself, instead of searching for some excuse to trigger confirmation bias for the sake of dismissing the information it showed you. That's what an objective person would do, anyway.
I've been following the F-35 from the start. If you were to evaluate it on the runway for the first time, with no knowledge of the program's history, the goals, the costs, and the delays, you'd say it was a good plane, maybe even a fantastic plane. Evaluating it on it's per-unit price is difficult because we know the history of the plane and we know that the original goal of the program was to produce a modern, inexpensive strike fighter. There weren't any glaring failures in the program. In spite of the delays and the cost overruns, the plane exists and the plane works, and now we're left with the question of whether to buy it.
In my opinion, it's too expensive. It's a great plane, but we don't need it at this moment, and if there's an equal chance to save money and get a better plane by starting over yet again, I'd say we do it. Let Lockheed learn that lesson, too. Sunk costs are a losers game - you have to know when to walk away.
The article touches on the one gigantic, enormous, almost criminal problem within the program - after paying for the development of the plane, we do not own the design or the related software. This must stop.
I was going to write a long essay about why the government should own the designs it has paid for (there's a very comfortable soapbox that has crawled up beneath me, it's a nice place to be and I'm not feeling any hurry to step down), but instead I'll just say this: A big part of the F-35's capabilities lie in it's advanced target acquisition system and it's helmet-based HUD. Every engineering expert has said that these systems would be excellent upgrades for all of our current combat aircraft; several companies have offered to retrofit the system to the F-15's and even the F-22. However, the designers and builders of the system say that it can't be done, and that the Pentagon will have to offer a new contract if they want this capability on existing planes.
https://www.f35.com/aboutThree variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least ten other countries.
A flying joke
Israel has a very advanced electronic warfare industry, trying to threaten israeli planes with S400 only helps in them collecting data for countering it.
I'm not getting what you are stating here. If you care to elaborate I would be interested.Trivia for the day, the combat aircraft that most closely resembles to performance capabilities of the F-16 Falcon is ....... the ME-262 which has never been reproduced until most recently.
The joke is on the adversary that underestimates what these aircraft in combination with the air forces and militaries in which they fly.
This aircraft can do everything it needs to do flying in an orbit that would make a 747 comfortable.
The best US projections said the Russians would reach the med and NATO in Europe would be done inside of three weeks, no longer. The US Army always has another tank or IFV, or plane in development. Sometimes they get bought and built, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get built only because fear says we can't make do with the old stuff any longer. Sometimes you get a brain-child General that thinks you don't even need tanks any more;
http://www.combatreform.org/tanklessarmy.htm
NATO, probably.
While the Soviet Union had manpower, NATO always had technological superiority.
It was a constant thing for the US governments and presidents to overstate the militaristic power of the USSR. America was always much stronger and never behind the Soviets in military or nuclear strength and capability, but in order to secure budgetary increases from Congress for the Pentagon, a fear of Russian power was necessary. Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and ESPECIALLY Reagan all knew this, yet had to keep an increased spending schedule in order to fuel the economic benefits of an ever-growing military-industrial complex. Gorbachev met with Reagan several times and telegraphed that the Soviet Union was near bankruptcy, yet Reagan felt it was necessary to counter a perceived threat of Russian ICBMs with his Star Wars SDI initiative.
At no point in history were the Soviets ever stronger than America post-WWII. The Soviets were always fearful of an American first-strike because from their point of view, the US was always in a position to destroy them without risk of total annihilation.
Even during their large military parades in May, when celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany every year, Soviet bombers would fly overhead, then loop around and fly over again to give the appearance of a large nuclear-equipped air force. The Americans always outnumbered Russian planes and bombers by between 5:1 to 10:1,
Nuclear weapons, which are relatively cheap to manufacture, were the equalizer. However, the infrastructure necessary to maintain and deliver those nuclear payloads to targets reliably and accurately is the expensive part. The Soviets could not maintain that expense as Americans kept increasing the number of nuclear weapons to over and above 15,000, and went bankrupt as a result. Especially once America started moving their nukes around, and once America announced plans for a missile defence shield, the number of nukes Russia needed to counter these defensive threats became totally unmanageable.
Soviet thinking was to throw bodies at a problem. It worked in WWII, with nearly 25,000,000 Russians dying (about two-thirds were civilian). The problem with that is you lose specialized forces who have training, you lose battle-hardened veterans, and the strength of your forces diminish as your loses mount. The USSR may have had millions of troops to throw at a NATO invasion, but Russia’s plan would’ve of been to outlast NATO in a war of attrition in the hopes the NATO casualties would’ve been so unpleasant that anti-war voices from the home front would not tolerate the losses of millions of troops, whereas in Russia, it would’ve been just another Tuesday.
I'm not getting what you are stating here. If you care to elaborate I would be interested.
But a few years ago a company started building an engine that would fit and they are building "reproduction" ME-262s. I'm not a pilot, but if I wanted a head turner I think this would be it for me.The Czechoslovak aircraft industry continued to produce single-seat (Avia S-92) and two-seat (Avia CS-92) variants of the Me 262 after World War II. From August 1946, a total of nine S-92s and three two-seater CS-92s were completed and test flown. They were introduced in 1947 and in 1950 were supplied to the 5th Fighter Squadron, becoming the first jet fighters to serve in the Czechoslovak Air Force. These were kept flying until 1951,[4] when they were replaced in service by Soviet jet fighters.
I question this assessment.
The U.S. military has a long history of overstating threats in order to increase their budget.
The Warsaw Pact had greater numbers, but NATO always had the technological edge, the ability to maintain complete and total air superiority, better troop readiness and greater economic strength to back up their military might.
From my perspective the only hope the Warsaw pact had of winning a war in Europe (in the unlikely event it didn't go nuclear) was to take advantage of the inevitable war weariness in democratic nations, something they could completely ignore due to their dictatorial structure.
Robert Klimpt summed it up quite nicely: