Jay LangleyPretty clear and interesting read Jay. Your argumentation is solid and logical.
… Now, tell us what happens in the 35 forum ? I would like to read the same level of quality from you there 😉
Yeh, Thanks…it is a realistic scenario being used to pose the questions I guess…the facts remain of what DID get used etc…so easy to formulate a question or point right?…
as for the F35 thread…there is NO realistic scenario, because there is NO FACTS of what was used etc…everything is speculative. For me it started out as simply trying to point our that for Canada, it really seems like a poor choice, and just got bad from there……lol…. I guess my biggest issue is that many posters take seemingly Propaganda releases as fact and argue till the sun comes home that the F35 is this and does that…point in case …right now, a poster on F35 is using the argument that the F35 carries weapons that are not even in existence or tested and approved…namely CUDA and the Meteor , which as far as I can find is no where near ready, modified nor tested for the F35. Like I also tried to say…IF a plane , any plane, carries external loadouts …it suffers from negative effects on performance right?…speed reduction, fuel economy etc. due to the increased drag coefficients ….soooo, that said, how could it be argued that the same situation on the F35 doesn;t have the same effects?…I guess it is things like that that set my teeth on edge and I react badly…..lol….anyway…cheers, Happy Holidays and a great New Year.
Jay LangleyTypical yellow journalism at it’s finest. Hardly changed from the sort of stuff written about the XM1 tank, B-1 bomber, and AH-64 decades ago.
Where to begin? First of all it’s based on the Sniper XR which is still a relatively recent targeting pod with 3rd generation FLIR, hardly obsolete. The Sniper ATP-SE only entered service this year. There is no reason to believe that planned “Tech Refreshes” won’t at some point include new hardware for EOTS. In many respects EOTS is a self-contained unit, AFAIK it is officially considered a line-replaceable unit (LRU).
Both an IR laser marker and “video streaming” capability were planned for notional Block 4/5 upgrades years ago. While new documentation on plans for later Blocks isn’t public, I doubt any features have been cut. Considering that the F-35 can share video with other F-35’s via MADL the notion that it will not be improved to transmit this to ground FACs is moronic.
A lot of unnamed sources and little else. Why didn’t LM respond? Look at the date. The one unnamed source claiming there is no planning ahead, doesn’t seem in touch with reality here. EOTS looks to be quite “easily upgradable” for an internal system.
To steal a quote from SMSgt Mac, “Credible sources on acquisition programs don’t use the word ‘dude’ in discussing acquisition topics.”
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26754&p=283287
Problem is this….LM designed and built the stupid plane with the system INSIDE, there fore the size constraints on any up grade will definate, there is no further room in the plane right?…..where external pods can be redesigned, upgraded, fitted easily to any variety of planes…..
based on whatever you want it to be I guess…regardless, the SNIPER ATP – SE is now the norm, and THAT is ten years more advanced than the F35’s system….as is the LITENING SE…so you are going to dispute the fact that the F35 system is at least ten years behind these newest developments?…. and sadly the SNIPER ATP – SE is even designed and built by Lockheed-Martin….so much for proactive planning eh?…..
Moronic perhaps, yet as it is , the F35 is apparently incapable of providing the troops on the ground with video…upgraded, improved, likely but when?…….certainly not before they get what it has working…..lol…and that;s what expected in how many years?… 5 or 6 ?
and in American vernacular, the use of “dude” is far more prevalent and accepted that one may be led to believe.
Jay LangleyF/A-18E maximum speed at level flight in altitudes of 36,089 ft is mach 1.6 clean however it will be slower with weapon while F-35 carry weapon internally so F-35 is faster
F/A-18E combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km ) while F-35C combat radius is 610 nmi (1,130 km) so F-35 fly longer
F/A-18E turn tight but have bad acceleration , F-35C can turn as tight as F/A-18E but accelerate better , especially when both side carry weapon ,CUDA is being developed just like rail gun or DEW you dont have them now but will in future
STOP…you can;t keep “forecasting” FUTURE developments…I mean really, the FUTURE will see X Wing Fighters too, with massive laser blasters…see, I can do it too….Until the stuff is developed tested and produced, it is SPECULATION.
Your points are also only good for the F/A 18 E/F…the Legacy F18 Hornet will be faster ARMED than the F35…….also far more maneuverable and better acceleration…range, yeh sure..F35 has a big gas tank…and they can blow up too…..LMAO
Your hardline stance fanning the F35 is seriously flawed….. from ability to weapons loads….the F35 is still YEARS from being anything more than a test bed….it can;t DO anything……yet everything else Other than the Grippen NG , IS out there right now doing the job…and being upgraded, with new targeting pods, AESA being developed and fitted etc….and all while the F35 still tries to get what it was designed with, 10 years ago, to work……..
Jay LangleyF-35 in strike mission with external stores can carry total of 24 SPEAR/SDB II + 2 Meteor/AIM-120 + 2 Aim-132/AIM-9X
F-35 in air to air mission with external stores can carry total of 12 Meteor/AIM-120 + 2 Aim-132/AIM-9X
F-35 in anti ship mission with external stores can carry total of 10 JSM +2 Meteor/AIM-120 + 2 Aim-132/AIM-9X
not to mention future missiles like CUDA will increase these number even higher
i dont think F-18 can top that 😉f-15 can carry more weapon and faster , fly further but F-35 have better SA ,EW have significant lower RCS ,and more maneuver and since stealth is very important f-35 is better
F-35 is faster, fly further,have better SA ,EW have significant lower RCS ,and more maneuver than F-18E/F it can carry equal amount of weapon , and even in stealth configuration F-35 can still carry 8 SPEAR/SDB II +4 cuda
OK, if you say so…I doubt that with 6 external hardpoints and it’s some what restrictive weapons bays the F35 is carrying such a load….and again, even if it did do so…IT IS NO BETTER than any other fighter out there….it no longer has “stealth” and it is even slower….
An F35 is better handling than an F15?…are you serious?……. sorry,it is certainly NOT more maneuverable than the F15 and again, as important as the “Stealth” may be…as soon as anything is hung EXTERNALLY it is no longer stealthy…
you seem to think that SPEAR or SDB II is some wonderful weapon system….you are talking about very small Ordnance…250 lb’s for the SDB’s…..and just how much better do you actually think the F35’s “performance” including range will be when it has external loads creating drag and slowing it down, and hampering it’s maneuverability?…
Fan on for sure my friend, and the day that an F35 is OPERATIONAL, and carries a weapons load anywhere even close to your speculative ones…well, it will be a fine day I guess…..till then, it is all rubbish and high hopes……you keep referencing METEOR, yet I didn;t think that the British Made Meteor was even capable of being F35 launched yet?….wow, I guess all the R&D and testing just flew by……thats something, I didn;t even think the RAF or the Euro Air Forces developing it where equipped with it yet….
Jay LangleyOf those three C-17s, IIRC one was paid for by the USA, & the other two by the consortium of smaller countries.
The French have spoken of the A400M as the answer to their need for C-17s in Mali. There were none in service at the time of the original intervention, but it’s been used since to deliver supplies, flying direct from France to airstrips not suitable for C-17.
Thanks again Swerve, yeh, I had read that one of the three C17’s for NATO was payed for by the USA, and a NATO consortium the other two….the list of Nations that can “access” the planes is pretty impressive though…wouldn;t seem like three would be enough .
I;m suprised about France, it took many c17’s as well as C130’s from all over NATO to get them TO Mali…supplying them while there with how many A400 Atlas’? maybe feasible….but when France finally decides to remove their assets…I cannot see them having enough Atlas’ to be able to accomplish that without again drawing on NATO Allies…..in comparison the A400 Atlas’ although great is more inclined to be a C130 Herc. comparable asset rather than a C17 one…..almost 90,000 lbs of load difference…that works out to be alittle over double the number of flights or planes that French A400 Atlas would need to extract the assets.
I hope that the Atlas’s prove to be the answer that Nations seem to think they will be…I am convinced that they are great and better perhaps than the C130 J’s. But to see a Nation like the UK plan to remove their C130 J ( 10) and C130 J-30’s ( 14 ) over 10 years earlier than needed to replace them with the planned 22 Atlas’s seems a bit wasteful financially…unless the RAF can sell off their C130 J’s and J-30’s to maybe help offset their costs…after all…those planes could perhaps fly another 15 – 25 years in another Nation and provide great service.
In any regards, it will prove to be a very interesting series of developments to watch. It all has been a bit confused with interests and orders bouncing around…hopefully the RAF does indeed decide to get another two….
cheers…..
Jay LangleyHhmmmmm, obviously you haven’t compared weapons both could carry.
Ok, jay your right- now can you stop posting hysterical diatribes?
I have not posted anything resembling a “hysterical diatribe”…that’s rather ignorant isn;t it?…because someone posts a view contrary to yours?
Again, you are trying to compare the F22 to the F35? the F22 is a Tactical air superiority fighter and is set as such…the ability it has to carry /drop at max two 1,000 lb JDAMS or eight GBU -39’s….that makes it a great CAS / Ground attack plane?…..One could even speculate that the F22 was only given those TWO a2g weapons so it could do something to show Congress it is useful and justifies the huge costs….I mean how many are actually operating and dropping ordnance on ISIS?….and why is the USAF wasting the world’s most expensive and limited number aircraft to bomb ISIS?…seriously, F16’s, F18’s , F15’s etc have all been dropping MORE bombs and in more missions with the loss of one F1? so where is the “need” for super stealth?…there is none at all…..it was simply a political move, plain and simple…
It;s a great fighter!…and will be the only thing saving the F35, as even the USAF has said publicly, the F22’s will NEED to fly cover for the F35’s…they are nowhere even similar in ability nor performance nor use.
You are the first I have ever heard try to relate the F22 and the F35 as equal. If so, what was the point of the F35? your argument is flawed by the simple fact that the F35 was even built. They are NOT the same capability nor designed to be .
Jay LangleyYeah, once again we are confronted with a case of you presenting your uninformed opinions as fact.
The weapons bays are useless? How did you come to that determination? The F-35 will be capable of carrying internally 2 x 2,000lb JDAMs, or 2 x JSOW, or 2 x JSM, or 2 x LGBs, or 8 x SDB, or 8 x SPEAR Cap 3, all while carrying a pair of air to air missiles. That is equivalent to what the aircraft the F-35 is replacing would carry in the large majority of their missions.
There is no “bluster or hyperbole.” I am simply providing necessary facts and context for people to understand how the F-35 compares to 4th generation fighters performing real world operations. Many make the mistake of looking at the F-35’s max speed and making a simplistic comparison to the stated max speeds of 4th generation jets, leading them to believe the F-35 is “slow.” The reality is that flying armed the F-35 will offer similar and in some cases better performance to the aircraft it is replacing. (depending on the specific mission and loadout) If an F-18 or Super Hornet is fast enough, then the F-35 is most certainly fast enough…
The F-35 does have and will use external hard points at least some of the time. When it does its aerodynamic performance will be impaired. The use of external hardpoints will most certainly not be required to carry a “useful load of anything.” Four 2,000lb bombs (2 external) and 18,000lbs of fuel is more than the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-16, or Hornet can even carry. The F-35 is capable of carrying 6 x 2,000lb bombs (4 external).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234162[/ATTACH]
(an F-35C with 6 x JDAMs, a load no aircraft the F-35 is replacing can match.)Yeah, a classic example of flawed conclusions following from a flawed premise. Garbage in, garbage out.
If the F-35 doesn’t need stealth it can carry a massive load relative to the aircraft it is replacing. If stealth is necessary then the F-35 can still carry a similar load to those routinely carried by the aircraft it is replacing, but they aren’t stealthy in any case so they wouldn’t be able to operate the way the F-35 would.
RUBBISH, the LEGACY F 18 Hornet has 9 hard points…two wingtip mounted AAM, 4 wing mounted hard points for ordnance and 3 fuselage hard points and can carry a total ordnance weight of 13, 700 lbs…THAT in it’s self exceeds the F35 by your own figures. Granted that the F 18 can only carry 10,000 lbs internal fuel, BUT it can also reduce it’s Ordnance load somewhat and incorporate a DT…as well as A2A Refueling, so the “range” may be of less consideration that the ability to carry the weapons load.
The F15 E can carry up to 23,000 lbs of external stores, including the GBU-28, so really?…the F 35 is “more capable”?, not to mention that the F 15 E has a massively more extensive array of accessible / usable ordnance than the F35 ever will and is capable of substantially higher speeds and far better performance and a2a combat abilities….as the Americans like to say…the F 15 is untouchable and cannot be defeated by current aircraft. So although expensive to operate and an older design, the F 15 still outperforms the F35 in ALL regards except for “stealth”….which as has already been said is nullified by the F 35 carrying external stores. Perhaps all the Nations looking at F35’s should instead try to buy up used F 15’s from the USAF?…..it’s a better plane all round. Sadly the US Government was hoodwinked and manipulated by LM’s BS and lobbying…because the F 15 SE Silent Eagle would have by far been THE best choice all around. But Boeing just isn;t the “flavour of the month” anymore.
The F/A 18 Super Hornet can carry a total of 17, 750 lbs of Ordnance / fuel on 13 hard points, and has an extensive list of available ordnance as well. Granted the performance of the F/A 18 SH is not much better than the F35, it is also substantially cheaper to purchase and operate, and again is IN THE FIELD, OPERATING, not some speculative wishlist of abilities in 2020 or beyond…..
Additionally the F 18 costs substantially less to operate. It doesn;t hide behind pretenses and LM fantasy predictions. It is DOING that right now, not “supposed to do” in 2020…so WHERE is the massive advantages?…Stealth?…to be stealthy it can only carry 4,000 lbs of ordnance, and that is ridiculous…to carry more ( external mounted) eliminates the “stealth” and handicaps the speed and performance. So by all accounts it would be far cheaper to buy a cheaper Legacy or Gen 4.5 airframe that can carry more and at a cheaper operating costs, as well as being PROVEN operationally capable airframes
Operate as an F 35 “WOULD”?. this is all proposed / expected operational ability…why, because NONE, not one can or does operate…period…..they will be years before the software is completed to even allow an F 35 to “DO” anything even remotely resembling Operational tasks…
so yeh, IF “Stealth” is paramount ( see your last sentence) than the plane can ONLY carry 4,000 lbs of ordnance ( internally)…sorry any plane that needs to fly “stealthy”, at what?, $30,000 per hour to operate….better be able to drop more than 2 JDAMS on some target, then again, if supposition plays out, as has been stated by someone INVOLVED in the program, the EOTS will be so reduced in capability and outdated the F 35 isn;t going to possess any advantage over current planes, and perhaps less ability as others are being updated constantly nor do exceptionally well dropping A to G Ordnance anyway…..so it will all be a chronic waste of time and money.
Bottom line, all the arguments about external loads effecting other fighter types, is JUST as applicable to the F 35, it is NOT immune to the same principles.
pretty picture by the way…..those great big JDAMS hanging there on external hardpoints sure turn the “Stealth” off on that plane now doesn’t it, as well as reduce it’s speed and performance…..where is the big “pay off” dividends to paying $130 million plus for the plane and $30,000 per hour to operate?……it becomes just a very expensive, slightly lower RCS plane of unexceptional abilities.
Jay LangleySimply put, your wrong. We have ample operational examples of how the USAF at least uses LO aircraft. You don’t see the F-22 carrying anything other than DT. I don’t know if they’ve even cleared many weapons for external carriage for F-22.
The f-35 will have several types of bombs, short range air to ground missiles, a cruise missile, and at least two different aam’s for internal weapons by 2020. Nations using the F-35 for Defensive counter air may choose to use external IR missiles, but it remains to be seen how often they will be mounted.
your trying to justify the F35’s horrid weapons ability by comparing to the F22?…you do know that the F22 is strictly and air superiority fighter right?…the F 35 is “supposed” to be a multi role plane?….if you consider having your super expensive, super stealthy F35 being USEFUL as a 1st strike aircraft and it can only carry 4,000 lb’s of bombs?…seriously?…you do realize that a WW2 De Havilland Mosquito could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs right?…and it was also “stealthy” being made of wood.
Did you read the article posted above?….it clearly stated FROM a serving member of the USAF and involved in the F 35 , that the F 35 is already and will be at least two generations BEHIND in it’s EOTS…so what bombs is it dropping?….bottom line, the F 35 has a pathetic capability in ordnance, limited in types and numbers without giving away speed and stealth…the SAME argument used to slam EVERY other type of fighter….
IF an F 35 slings external stores, and it MUST to be any use in a modern conflict, IT WILL, in NO uncertain terms suffer in a reduction in it;s speed as well as in it’s “Stealth” period…external stores will create drag and slow the plane…same as for the Super Hornet or the Rafale or any other type…and when the stores are exposed on hard points, well, the RCS increases substantially, therefore loosing it’s Stealth….how can that be argued?…because the plethora of fanboys have just argued the exact same thing above for a whole page only regarding other types…yet the same, only WORSE ( loss of “stealth”) occurs with the F 35.
By the way, flying the world’s most expensive “Per Hour cost to fly” aircraft and only carry 4,000 lbs of internal ordnance for ANY CAS, 1st strike or any other bombing mission is a catastrophic waste of financial resources and falls far short of any current types being operated to drop ordnance on ISIS targets etc, both in individual ability ( lbs. of ordnance per aircraft) AND cost to fly said missions.
there can be no justification to this…it’s all farcical and the great”sales pitches” thrown out there by LM are reduced to pure rubbish.
Jay LangleyTo bad the F 35 will still be handicapped by the fact that it’s 2 x 2,000 lb weapons bays are useless and carry a substantially limited number of actual ordnance. Bottom line, for all the bluster and hyperbole about decrease in “traditional” fighters with their under slung hard-point mounted weapons / drop tanks etc. The F 35 WILL require the use of hard-points as well….simply to carry a useful load of anything…hence the exact same “degradation” of performance you have highlighted will effect the F35 as well. There for the “streamlining” effect of the weapons bays will be significantly nullified by having to hang external ordnance, as well said external ordnance will make the F35 visible on radar as well…nullifying the”stealth”….so really where is the benefits for either? by simply making the F 35 useful, it becomes SLOWER and visible just like any other fighter, yet still costs substantially more?
Great deal there….
Jay LangleyJay,
There were exactly 10 white tail C-17s. Boeing planned to build 13, but cancelled the last three at the point where long lead items would have had to start being made, because of insufficient customer interest. There is no scramble by ‘many NATO nations’. What nations would those be? The seven which have ordered A400M, of which three have cut their requirement? The two which plan to buy KC-390 as their top-end transport? The small countries which jointly own a couple of C-17s to cover their occasional need for heavy transport?
So far, two of the 10 speculatively built C-17s have been ordered by an un-named customer (possibly Middle Eastern), two to four are sought by Australia (formal request submitted), & one by Canada. There was once talk of the RAF getting two more to bring its total to 10, but there’s been a deafening silence on that recently, & it now seems unlikely.
So – 5 to 7 are spoken for, leaving 3 to 5 available.
Sainul,
please, please don’t start a new thread for each post. There’s a thread for news items. All of the new threads like this that you’ve started should have been in it.
My appologies Swerve,
I was going by a news article that I found on UK Aviation..( only days ago)…it was obviously written in the UK and was distinctly talking about serious RAF interest in MINIMUM one further, likely two C17’s. Canada HAS announced that we will be getting a fifth C17 for sure, and the Aussies have likewise spoken for them….
Posted TODAY …..” UK Aviation…..GENERAL AVIATION NEWS :- MORE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE C-17A GLOBEMASTER IIIs APPROVED FOR PURCHASE
The United States State Department has approved a planned $1.609 billion foreign military sale to Australia of around four Boeing C-17A Globemaster IIIs…
The announcement comes after the approval was given on the 12th November 2014…
(Follow the link below for an exclusive post regarding extra C-17s for the RAF and the imminent closure of the C-17 production line in the US)
https://www.facebook.com/shares/view?id=623250131112920
YES, several smaller nations have a combined interest in THREE C17’s as part of the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability Program, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, the United States, as well as two Partnership for Peace countries Finland and Sweden as of 2010. Additionally ANY NATO Nation may request use of said NATO C 17’s ( France did so during the serious efforts to move France’s Military deployment to Mali, along with MANY C 130’s and other NATO Nation’s C17s as well…). With having seen first hand how much effort was required, would NATO look at another one or two C17’s?…I understand that Kuwait has one outstanding C17 from it;s order.
Jay LangleyYeh, Canada is buying our fifth C17……and Australia has also put in for additional C17’s to bring their fleet up to 10. The RAF is also looking to buy additional c17’s to bring their fleet up to 10 as well…….these will come from the additional “unclaimed” C17’s left after the bulk ( I believe 20 ish) are sold to various Middle east Nations…I think I read that there where 13 or so left available, that is where Canada, the Auzzies and the Brits will find their units….with the closing of the production line….many NATO Nations will scramble to get their hands on what they can….
Jay LangleyThen again,
NONE of the other Post Cold War Fighters, even the “other” US built breed, the Super Hornet, has nor gets the US Government pulling “strings” and political pressuring other Nations to buy them either. I mean we already KNOW that the US strong armed Norway, because Norway complained and reported it….so….
Does that prove that there is ANY “enthusiastic” reception from anyone for the F 35?…I mean we are talking about a plane of which the Nations that actually ordered them have TWO examples each…and all of them are still YEARS from even being remotely operationally capable…what is it now?.. 2% of the code is “operational ready”?…so in all honesty, ALL of the examples of Post Cold war fighters YOU mentioned have recieved FAR better reception than the F 35….more sold, more that are actually MILITARY planes as opposed to test beds.
What is your point about Argentina’s fighters?…30 years old?…Canada’s CF-188’s are 30 years old?….yet they are still good enough to police the Baltic right? Still good enough to be bombing ISIS in the Sand Box right?
Sadly this is where fact and fiction separate….as of right now the F 35 has achieved precisely SQUAT….it has NOT achieved anything CLOSE to Operational Status, it has NEVER flown a mission, dropped munitions on real targets..so what has it done?…run over budget, run years behind racked up a few orders…and NONE of the others that are “expected” to order have now have they?….NO!, wonder why? because they are smart enough to hold off and watch to see what will actually happen, not basing purchases on speculation and Power Point Presentations.
I don;t understand your bizarre need to become irrational , I mean MSphere listed Legitimate Air Forces…Nations , some of which are allies to the USA ( Qatar, Saudi Arabia) yet they have CHOSEN other airframes despite the fact that they could easily have afforded F 35’s. So you discount them as unimportant. Son, far more to life than the F 35…and no matter how you wine on here, there will be others that have opinions just as valid as yours, but differ, Nations that CHOOSE NOT to buy the F 35, for any number of reasons. Don;t take it personally, unless YOU work for Lockmart. Some times Nations and people see through the hype and BS and “shiny new bobble” mentality and see it for what it is……
Jay Langleyoh boy! you have russophobia times 100!
1. labeling – first off, there are no russian terrorists there, sure there are volunteer russian military vets, ex spetchnaz whatever else, sure there are GRU in ukraine at this moment (but ill give you a tin foil hat for that), if you say there are “russian terrorists” then american terrorists in syria, libya and ect- you will open a big can of worms, at least the rebels in ukraine did not rape the current president with a metal rod like the saudi trained american backed rebels did in libya
2. Your version of the events is just like CNN, however the plane fell on the rebel territory, the rebels invited international community, UKRAINE started shelling the crash sight, i beg to question why? why specifically the crash sight, and ofcourse no one wanted to get killed during this from the international observers so its ukraine that wanted to delay everything.
3. please let me know how you can “sterilize a crash sight”- the blk boxes were intact, the seals on them were intact, the wreck was still there, bodies still there.. so what is your reasoning?
4. once again Russia did it – thats exactly what “they” wanted people to think BEFORE the facts were analyzed, once again ur just like the US media with psaki
5. In any airforce? this is ukraine during a government coup, what records? are you kidding me? if they took all the radar data and the air controller, they could seal any records.
in summery you are just not serious, do some research for a change – other then CNN and their comrades
Lets see, “My version” is much like CNN and “Comrades”, and is unlike your slanted pro Russian propaganda BS…Your version has been discredited by experts, by scores of posters on this forum and your explanation for NO records is “its during a coup”…BS…The Ukrainian Military is still in existence and operating…forms, reports and procedures used BEFORE would still be used…..
1). Russian Military troops that have ILLEGALLY infiltrated a sovereign Nation ( Ukraine ) and are fighting against the Ukraine are Terrorists sorry, they are bound by no chain of command nor Nation apparently…so…if the boot fits…..
2). the Rebels ( see terrorists) and Russians had the Black Boxes IN RUSSIA for how long before turning them over?…why where they NOT left in situ for the investigators?… the bodies themselves weren;t evidence of who shot the plane down…..but the Russians and “rebels” sure dragged it all on along time…allowing for the bodies to rot and THEY removed / tampered with many of them , tossing them into train cars. And funny, the Ukrainians where the ones that allowed/invited and helped the International investigators…it was the Russian / rebels that FOUGHT the advance to the site…and the Ukranians did NOT shell that crash site…but the hordes of Rebel / Russian troops in the area blocking and fighting them!
3). Lets see….the Russians found and took the black boxes to RUSSIA…for how long before turning them over?…. ..and sterilizing a site would be removing any evidence that could be found that would SHOW Russian involvement….
4). YOUR view, and one from the Pro Russian Propaganda slant…don;t come on here and blame the “West” and hold the Russians on a pedestal, and then NOT expect or be able to take the resulting slam against the Russians….depends entirely what side of the world your from I guess, we in the FREE west can base our opinions upon countless reports from all over the world…and do…Russians base theirs on Pravda and Russian Government controlled Propaganda news….
6). This argument doesn;t hold water…sorry…..the Ukrainian Military still functions, and was then…forms, reports and procedures used before would still be used, otherwise no one would know where planes were lost, pilots flying, where they where / are/ or what targets where attacked / hit etc……
You have INSISTED on posting this drivel, it was removed, I guess, the first time, so you post it up again?….. WHY, are you trying to convince us all that Russia is innocent?…that the big bad USA did it?…what’s your motive?…because it is a hot topic for debate and opinions…yet anyone discrediting or disagreeing with YOUR view is “wrong”….same happened last time around…..
Jay Langleyactually yes, you cant just pick and choose parts you want, what kind of evidence is that? you take everything, see the point is not “clean up” like you put it, its finding “the guy” responsible for this, and for some reason russia is the only one still looking – everyone else just classified things
Funny that because as I remember it, Russia and Russian supported terrorists pretty much made sure that access to the site was delayed, watched closely and monitored very well, all AFTER the Russians had time to “sterilize” the site, remove incriminating evidence and plant others……don;t talk about Russia being the only ones looking…..Russia very well KNOWS who did it…they did…..putting the emphasis on others and diverting the blame is a game Moscow does very well…and has for decades, way back into the long dark days of the Cold War…..
Much like you have ignored the bulk of my initial post and focused in on the Dutch NOT taking all the garbage and scraps……WHERE is the evidence?….any Air Force will have after action reports, loss reports of TWO SU -25’s occurring in the same area on the same date, mission planning forms, ordnance loading reports etc…..where is this all?
Jay LangleyCrow…do you see a flaw in your story line from your first post?….
THREE ( 3 ) SU – 25’s took off, TWO where shot down….shot down…and your wondering WHY the surviving aircraft landed without ordnance?…it seems like pure speculation as to What Ordnance was carried on the aircraft or on each one specifically..I would imagine IF any attention be paid to this really “fanciful” fairy tale..I would presume that loading records, mission records, pilot info, loss records for the other two “shot down” SU 25’s would all exist and collaborate this “fairy tale version?…..
This rubbish has been discredited as Propaganda and simple BS at every turn…the so called “photo evidence” was cobbled together by a school child and found to be rubbish….so why is this different?…..
and NOT Modern Military Aviaition anyway…..would be better in Missiles and Ordnance or something….
and really , WHY did the Dutch ONLY take the parts that showed evidence of damage / cause / effect?…..really?….perhaps you would have preferred them to vacuum the entire site and clean everything as well?……
Sign In
