pluto77189You misunderstood.. There is not point doubt the ability of a Buff to do a lot of damage. That is nothing really new. What I am asking about is the sense of all this. In theory everything looks good. The enemy target is identified, lased and destroyed, the world is a peaceful place to live now. Now tell me what kind of conflict it should be so you could get use of that kind of weapon. Iraq? Afghanistan? Or similar? How can you use the B-52 in the *anti-terrorist* war or *peacekeeping* military mission? What can such a bomber achieve in guerilla fights if US military machinery is unable to win a battle over a single town like in Falludjah? Or is the amount of damage the only thing that counts? Then we can get back to nukes, again.
I can hardly think of any use for a strategic bomber nowadays, therefore keeping three types in inventory seems a complete insanity to me. I can think of some better ways to use the money.
The point in keeping the US military as powerful as possible is two fold: One, we want to deter people from starting anything. And Two, if something happens, ANYHTING, a war, a skirmish, small conflict, massive war between “US and THEM”, we have to be prepared. Having strategic bombers is an integral part of being able to deal with ANY situation, weather it’s something we’ve delt with in the past, or something we haven’t foreseen. you can’t sit back and be complacent, that’s just not how it works.
And the US military machinery is fully capable of winning any battle, and fellujia would fall in no time if that were the goal. Fellujia is not a city we’re trying to “take”, it’s a city that’s got some “problem” people in it, and we’re trying to fix the problem without ****ing off the rest of the country. The Marines are at the end of their leash–held back. If they were asked to go in, door to door, and clear out anyone with a gun, they’ll do it.
If the “negotiations” don’t work, then they will have to take the city.
pluto77189It all depends on what and how you are attacking. If yu are sneaking up on something, and need to blow them up from a distance, at night, then the Apache is perfect. It’s amazing how they can sneak up on you. At the last Airshow I went to, held at a local International Airport, one of the local Nat. Guard Apache pilots did a demo for everyone. He takes off, and flies out of view. They had some other demo, time passes, people forget. They announce the apache demo is beginning. Out of nowhere, just a FEW hundred feet from the other side of the runway, they apache popps out of the trees, just 50 feet off the ground. Everybody couldn’t believe it. this guy had snaked in and out of the trees around the airport, and ended up RIGHT in front of the crowd. HE did some really neat N.O.T.E. demos, using the surrounding forest to show the manuerability of the apache. While it is a SLOW chopper, it is EXTREMELY manuverable, dodging and weaving.
The longbow can seriously wipe out huge numbers of targets very quickly witht he radar-ATGM’s. It can take a lot of damage, for a helicopter. When that first was shot down, nearly all of them were hit by heavy fire. The fact that they weren’t “Ready to go” the next day is not the issue. The fact that the helicopters were shot to heck and MADE IT BACK so they COULD BE REPAIRED is what matters.
for an all-out WAR, when you need something to sneak up and kill things–BIG things, Apache is an awesome weapon, and has proven itself many times.
for an Urban conflict, where the helicopter is going to do pinpoint strikes, or cover ground forces, the Apache is out of its element. It is made to fly nap of the earth in order to hide from the enemy. Flying N.O.T.E. over a city is, in hindsight, and unbeliveably asssinine idea. Flying low is to HIDE, flying low over a CITY does ANYTHING but hide you!!!
In this case, the Cobra is a better choice. It canot take the punishment of the apache, but in it’s intended role, the Cobra doesn’t have to. The old vietnam style strikes are what you need in this case, and the Cobra does it just fine.
For a fight when HEAVY firepower is needed, and a stealth, N.O.T.E. is not possible–Too open, cities, etc. The sbility to take a hit is important, as is speed. The cobra has speed, but not armor, the apache has armor and manuverability, but not speed. It seems the Russian AH’s have this combination, and would be a much better Il-2 type aircraft.
I think that the closest thing the US has to that is the A-10.
pluto77189Yes, I know it has the stand-off capability. If it won’t be able to handle with the current modern SAM systems, then it only can be used for terrorizing stand-off attacks against third-world countries, such as Afghanistan or Iraq. Not much of an use, anyway.
That’s why the B-52’s are used for stand off attacks first, then brought in after the SAM/fighter threat is “gone”.
Just like in the past conflicts, they were dropping bombs after the threats of SAMs and Fighters were gone.
They are intended to deal with modern SAMs, the F-22 is. The X-45 is. The B2 MIGHT is kinda able to, but lacks speed. Remember, JDAMs and SDB’s will have a stand off range of some 40 miles when equipped with a dimondback kit. A flight of 4 B2’s, each carrying nearly 200 SDB’s with a range of nearly 50 miles can do a lot of damage.
The ability of the heavy bombers to carry so much weaponry is a great asset. B1’s dropped most of the bombs in Afghanistan, being able to loiter, and strike when needed. The situation will arise–sooner or later–when such a bomb truck is ABSOLUTLY NEEDED. And if they plan to keep the things another 30-40 years, they’re going to get some use.
Imagine the destruction a B-52 can cause with a full load of SDBs or 500 pound laser or GPS bombs and a litening pod. It can fly around, locate, identify and target ANYTHING. IT can select a LGB, lase it, and destroy it. OR it has the ability to obtain EXACT GPS coordinates BY ITSELF, feed them to a JDAM, and kill it. IT can lopiter still, and re-bomb if necessary. The B52 becomes a giant, super high altitude, ULTRA heavyily armed, AC-130. Now, if you’ve seen the AC-130 video in afghanistan, imagine the damage if it was able to put a 250-500 pound bomb there instead.
pluto77189Not to mention the fact that Stirling Bridge was fought on a bridge, and not on a level field!
Actually, if you watch the DVD of braveheart, and listen to mel gibson’s personal commentary, it makes for a MUCH better, and satisfying experience.
HE stresses that the story is not history, only certain characters and events. He mentions sterling bridge, EdwardII’s wife’s age, and contrasts the movie to history–much more so than I could have expected.
Braveheart was a fantastic movie, as long as you are not burdened by the idea that it tries to re-tell history. Once you are able to remove the story from history and place it in film, it’s a great movie. I would understand it if English people have a harder time removing it from history than Americans, however…
As for the Patriot, corny and melodramatic, but I liked it. Realistic, hell no, but a decent stroy that pseudo-paralleled historical events.
I like mel gibson, but if he’s in one more movie in which the English have the compassion of Uday hussein, and I’m going to start to wonder. Sure, European colonialists were far from the compassionate people we strive to be today, but burning a church full of civilians?
pluto77189Can’t even understand the game of football they can’t.
“Put the ball DOWN!”
And as they seem to turn it into pathetic-rugby, why do they need to armour plate themselves? Should play like real men. Ugly men with cauliflower ears that is.
YEah, right. Rugby is a different game my friend. Tough in its own right, but football is a different game. If you tried to play american football WITHOUT a helmet and hourder pads, and all the leg pads, you’d be killed in the first few minutes. I have met some rugby players, and some are very big guys. But have you ever seen, up close, how big a defensive/offensive lineman can get?
In high school, I was 185, and the other defensive tackle(besides me) was 6’4″ 285. the other teams we played were from big cities, and they had some guys 6’6″, 300+ pounds–and they get bigger after they get into college!
Every day in practice, we’d have tackling drills, two guys, about 200 pounds each, running full speed right into each other–over and over and over. You need pads for that.
Rugby is more of a brawl, like wrestling and soccer. (american) Football is so far removed from what you guys play, there should be no comparison. There’s more of an explosive nature to the play,since it’s not continuous.
In Rugby you get more superficial wounds, cuts, breaks, etc–more hurt in general. Like hockey–the entire local NHL hockey team came into my store one time, and EVERY one had at least a (fresh) black eye, broken nose, deep cut to the face. you don’t see this too much in football, because of the helmets. The most common injuries tend to be sprains, strains, joing twistings, ligament tearings, concussions(considering that they wear helmets, that’s a big deal).
I can’t get into soccer, rugby looks like I would have enjoyed playing it, but I never got the oppurtunity until college, and by then, I was too busy.
Football can be very entertaining, and it’s strategic in that EVERY PLAY has to be well planed, executed,etc. And a simple mistake in play planning can kill you.
pluto77189Ironic, isn’t it, that the technology of war may be our only hope to avoid extinction, should such a situation arise.
Plus, it’ll be a good way to get rid of those nuculear warheads that have been burning a hole in our military’s arsenal.
pluto77189I don’t get the neutron bomb thing anyway. The “kills with radiation but leaves structures standing” is a bit of an ubran myth, as neutron bombs are just as powerful as the equvilant “kilotonnage” nuke, but are designed to produce more radiation–more NEUTRON radiation–than a “regular” nuke of equivalent size. So, to get X amounts of radiation, you can use a smaller yeild neutron bomb for the same results, hence the origin of the rumor.
Back on track… This radiation is desirable, as it can pass through tank armor, and (eventually, after hours or days of agony) kill tank crews. The fact that it PASSES through armor, means it would PASS THROUGH asteroid as well…which would be useless.
If the asteroid is close, we got no chance but to send what we have at it to TRY to break it up and deflect the shattered pieces. We’v egot thousands of warheads, if we can shatter the thing first, we may have a chance. We’re pretty much screwed though.
If we have months or years to do something, I think deflecting the thing is our only shot. Sticking a motor/rocket on it would be the best way, a continous push would probably move it at least a little, if we can get it moving a few meters a second in any particular direction(need rocket scientists), and it’s still far enough away when we do it, we could survive.
Putting a motor on the side of the thing would take a long time to plan, and depends on lots of things to work just right. However, a single blast might not do the trick.
If faced with potential extinction/destruction, and with limited time to act(technology comprable to todays) I think our only option is to send a continuous stream of high yield neuclear warheads to detonate on the side we need to push on(and hopefully, to penetrate in first, as mass ejected from the object would give more thrust). A few hundred or thousand will have to push it at least a smidgen, and at distance, that’s all we may need. Maybe we can crash it into the moon, that’ll be some show!
pluto77189Originally posted by Srbin
I kinda thought it was a Cold War Relic because it was designed to be “stealthy” or low observable, which made them in someway give up performance.I don’t think USAF needed an all stealthy force especially in the War on Terror.
The stealth is just as important now as it was then. With the threat of new sams, low observable aircraft have a much better chance of surviving. It doesn’t matter if it’s koreastan or cold-war moscow.
They didn’t really sacrifice too much in performance, as most of the low observable features, although a sacrifice in dollars if there ever weas one, fit in nicely with areodynamics. The only aspect that in any way impedes performance drastically is the non variable engine inlets, which limit top speed. That speed in pretty much unnecessary anyway, so it’s no big deal.
Just beacuse something has been in development since the cold war, politicians–who are against the project–call it a relic. The negative conotation to the word relic insinuate that it’s old, obsolete, and built for an extinct purpose. In fact, the F-22 is built not to destroy the USSR’s airforce, but to be a dominant fighter. While the destruction of soviet aircraft required the F-22, it in no way means that the F-22 is not necessary, simply because the Soviet airforce is no longer a threat.
Back then the reason we needed a superior fighter was the need to dominate the skys in a war—-with Russia.
Now, the reason we need a superior fighter is the need to dominate the skys in a war—-that involves the newest threats.
No F-22=inferior aircraft. Inferior aircraft=LESS superior airforce. Less superior Airforce=LESS pilots returning home.
pluto77189That’s great news. I always loved the A-10, and felt the AF never gave it the respect it deserved.
While Jdams, and SDB’s might provide the same (or better) close air support as an A-10 in some situations, there’s just something about CLOSE close air support.
I would think that the whistling sound of the A-10 flying around would give troops a nice confidence boost–especially when they hear that avenger roar in the distance.
conversly, knowing that there’s something low, flying around, circling above you–you can hear it, see it, hear the cannon rip up your forces, AND it’s hard to kill–major psycological weapon for us.
pluto77189Originally posted by Flood
A CONVERT! Welcome.Flood.
No, not a convert, just well educated, and informed.
I HATE, DESPISE, AM SICKEND BY history being misrepresented or twisted in a way as to misinform the public.
Movies like Braveheart, or The Patriot(with mel gibson), are clearly not intended to portray historical fact. they take some actual events, and make it a movie–I can deal with it(Although I really like the Patriot, I fully understand why the British did not. I liked it as a movie, because I am able to fully separate fact from hollywood.)
Movies like U-571 confused me. I wasn’t sure what is was about, until I saw it. I thought it was a good movie, but I REALLY wish they’d make up the story, being that they’re going to fabricate everything else. If I had not known the true story, by watching Victory at sea, and WWII documentaries since I was a little kid, I would have in my mind, the belief that, the Americans captured the enigma machine from that sub.
It would be the equivalent of showing a WWII movie, where the americans take berlin, surround hitler, and he kills himself “right before they get him!” all the while, making NO mention to the Russians.
However, I do see why Lucas used british actors to represent the Empire. He wanted the empire to be as plain as possible, there were no aliens, just white humans, colors were black, grey and white, nothing else, and they were an “empire” What better accent to have than a VERY elitist British(ish) accent! To americans, a strong British Accent, if done with the proper inflection, sound VERY authoritative, commanding, and “I’m better than you.” (I think of Alec Guiness in the Bridge on the River Kwai, refusing to do work, because he’ “an officer”, and above hard labor).
So, what is the “stereotypical” American accent supposed to convey?
pluto77189Originally posted by Flood
A CONVERT! Welcome.Flood.
No, not a convert, just well educated, and informed.
I HATE, DESPISE, AM SICKEND BY history being misrepresented or twisted in a way as to misinform the public.
Movies like Braveheart, or The Patriot(with mel gibson), are clearly not intended to portray historical fact. they take some actual events, and make it a movie–I can deal with it(Although I really like the Patriot, I fully understand why the British did not. I liked it as a movie, because I am able to fully separate fact from hollywood.)
Movies like U-571 confused me. I wasn’t sure what is was about, until I saw it. I thought it was a good movie, but I REALLY wish they’d make up the story, being that they’re going to fabricate everything else. If I had not known the true story, by watching Victory at sea, and WWII documentaries since I was a little kid, I would have in my mind, the belief that, the Americans captured the enigma machine from that sub.
It would be the equivalent of showing a WWII movie, where the americans take berlin, surround hitler, and he kills himself “right before they get him!” all the while, making NO mention to the Russians.
However, I do see why Lucas used british actors to represent the Empire. He wanted the empire to be as plain as possible, there were no aliens, just white humans, colors were black, grey and white, nothing else, and they were an “empire” What better accent to have than a VERY elitist British(ish) accent! To americans, a strong British Accent, if done with the proper inflection, sound VERY authoritative, commanding, and “I’m better than you.” (I think of Alec Guiness in the Bridge on the River Kwai, refusing to do work, because he’ “an officer”, and above hard labor).
So, what is the “stereotypical” American accent supposed to convey?
pluto77189Originally posted by Vympel
Depends on the bombs. Think about how many SDBs it could carry.
That’s what I was thinking. A minimal weight increase, and VERY minimal drag. SDB’s are smaller, lighter, and provide less drag than AIM-120’s, and are only twice as heavy as sidewinders.
The speed and manuverability offered by the C would allow it to get into areas the E “shouldn’t” go. Also, it simply provides several hundred more bomb platforms, which can never hurt.
I’m sure the F-15’s were simply, in a better position than the strike aircraft. I don’t think the AF would intentionally use an F-15C over anything else, unless they had too. I recall seeing F-16’s swooping over fellujia last week as well.
The fact that the F-15 can get somewhere faster than anything else probably played a role in its use.
pluto77189Originally posted by EN830
Arguing you two stop must.many of the actors were British encluding Darth Vader, he was also the Green Cross code,
Dave Prowse , the guy that played vader… he got shafted by Lucas big time. A radio show(bob and tom) had him on last year.
He’s played Vader every time, and ACTUALLY did the voice. He was supposed to have gone back, after filming, to re-record the voice of Darth Vader–without the alterations that he ended up having–but Lucas went ahead and had James Earl Jones do it instead.
He spoke a few lines from Star Wars on the show, and I was SHOCKED–His vader voice was FAR FAR better than Jones, even without voice altering effects.
James earl Jones’ voice was ALTERED TO SOUND LIKE David Prowse’s voice!
Again, the british get the $hit end of the stick because of hollywood!
pluto77189Originally posted by EN830
Arguing you two stop must.many of the actors were British encluding Darth Vader, he was also the Green Cross code,
Dave Prowse , the guy that played vader… he got shafted by Lucas big time. A radio show(bob and tom) had him on last year.
He’s played Vader every time, and ACTUALLY did the voice. He was supposed to have gone back, after filming, to re-record the voice of Darth Vader–without the alterations that he ended up having–but Lucas went ahead and had James Earl Jones do it instead.
He spoke a few lines from Star Wars on the show, and I was SHOCKED–His vader voice was FAR FAR better than Jones, even without voice altering effects.
James earl Jones’ voice was ALTERED TO SOUND LIKE David Prowse’s voice!
Again, the british get the $hit end of the stick because of hollywood!
pluto77189This happened a few times in Afghanistan, Bad guys got in too close for bombs, and A-10’s weren’t close enough, so they called down some F-15’s and F-16’s to push them back. After the fighters emptied their ammo drums, the targets had put enough distance between the soldiers and themselves to allow for jdam/cluster bomb strikes.
From what I’ve understood, the brass HATES putting their beloved F-teens on these strafing runs, but th epilots LOVE getting down low to help out soldiers–besides, it gives them a chance to let the vulcan rip–and that’s supposed to be quite a rush. To top it off, the roar from a vulcan or avenger cannon carries on for miles, and is a very effective psycological weapon.
Sign In
