Interesting: The Secret War Against Iran... [Archive]

OklahomaTuba

1/25/2007, 09:07 AM

This is a great site, and I thought this entry today was very interesting:

January 25, 2007: Bringing democracy to Iraq has forced the Islamic world to confront the terrorism monster they have created. Before Saddam was taken down, the Gulf Arabs depended on Saddam, as loathsome as he was, to keep Iran busy. Since 1979, Shia radicals have been running Iran, and supporting Islamic terrorism. But most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis who, as a matter of pride and principle, despise Shias, and Iranians. But with Saddam gone, the Iranians have gotten more ambitious.

With the Shia majority in Iraq now running the country, the Arabs now have to confront Iran directly. And that they are doing. Saudi Arabia is supporting the Palestinian Fatah organization against the Iranian supported Hamas. Saudi Arabia is also using its money to support Sunni Arab, and Christian, factions in Lebanon, against Hizbollah, the Shia minority and its Iranian backers. Saudi Arabia is also giving support to the Sunni Arab majority in Syria. For decades, the Saudis tolerated the Shia minority that ran Syria. No more. The situation has changed, especially with Iran gaining speed in its effort to build nuclear weapons.

The Saudis are even, secretly, cooperating with the Israelis. Iran has always been seen as a greater danger to Israel than the surrounding Sunni Arab nations. Hizbollah, which is a Lebanese Shia organization, made a name for itself during its disastrous attack on Israel last Summer. Although Hizbollah lost by every measure, they won in the arena of public opinion. Both the Israelis and Saudi Arabs (and Sunni Arabs in general) hated that.

The removal of Saddam has already crippled al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world. The sight of American troops in Iraq enraged al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in general. This was the one thing these maniacs could not tolerate. They all flocked to Iraq, began killing lots of Moslems, and after a year or so of that, plummeted in the popularity ratings throughout the Moslem world. Now the Saudis are mobilizing against that other terrorist backer; Iran. The Saudis are committing over $100 billion to this battle, and doing it out of the purest of motives; self interest.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20070125.aspx

Is VERY good news. The Kingdom's royal family is nothing more than a branch of the state department, so its good news to see us start using them.

jeremy885

1/25/2007, 10:05 AM

JohnnyMack

1/25/2007, 10:12 AM

How again did the removal of Saddam cripple Al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world?

That was my first question too.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/25/2007, 10:45 AM

How again did the removal of Saddam cripple Al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world? I support the war, but Saddam and Al Qaeda are two completely different monsters and taking out one does nothing to the other.My guess is it showed the Islamist terror groups(Al qaeda included) that we will not take terror sitting down. You probably already knew that answer. However, nowadays, after the '06 election, they have probably become invigorated.

jeremy885

1/25/2007, 10:56 AM

Won't the taking out of the Taliban have done that? Other than giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, how did terror groups get support from Saddam? I'm for the war because Saddam was a bad guy and needed to go, not because of some suppose link to Al Qaeda that now has been proven not to be true.

landrun

1/25/2007, 11:34 AM

Well, Saddam's removal has certainly distracted them from attacking American interest in other places, including here. They're now spending their resources, time, money, weapons and people, fighting each other for control of Iraq. Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the Muslims killing each other rather than them killing everyone else for a change.

They'd rather not have to fight each other, but neither side wants to lose the chance to control Iraq. So we're only one enemy that they're each fighting. And they're killing a whole lot more of each other than they are Americans in Iraq. Its not even close.

OklahomaTuba

1/25/2007, 01:38 PM

How again did the removal of Saddam cripple Al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world? I support the war, but Saddam and Al Qaeda are two completely different monsters and taking out one does nothing to the other.

Amazing how quickly some forget recent history.

AQ decided to make their stand in Iraq. This of course was planned by Bush et al.

So, Instead of AQ's energy being put to use against us in other parts of the world and here at home, it brought the war to the heart of the middle east, while also eliminating the threat of a terrorist sponsering state that was months away from a nuke and had already used WMD in the past.

Unfortunatly, Iran has also become involved in Iraq by killing our troops and trying to take over the country, and it now seems we are being dragged into a massive sectarian struggle in the entire middle east.

mdklatt

1/25/2007, 01:49 PM

My guess is it showed the Islamist terror groups(Al qaeda included) that we will not take terror sitting down.

Damn straight. And if those ragheads mess with us again we'll kick Finland's ***.

Vaevictis

1/25/2007, 01:52 PM

So, Instead of AQ's energy being put to use against us in other parts of the world and here at home, it brought the war to the heart of the middle east, while also eliminating the threat of a terrorist sponsering state that was months away from a nuke and had already used WMD in the past.

:rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba

1/25/2007, 01:53 PM

Damn straight. And if those japs mess with us again we'll kick Germany's ***.

:D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/25/2007, 01:54 PM

Damn straight. And if those ragheads mess with us again we'll kick Finland's ***.Iraq =Finland? You're hopeless, dude.

Vaevictis

1/25/2007, 01:55 PM

Iraq =Finland? You're hopeless, dude.

Pure comedy gold.

OklahomaTuba

1/25/2007, 02:03 PM

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/25/2007, 02:04 PM

Pure comedy gold.Good that you explained it.

JohnnyMack

1/25/2007, 02:07 PM

AQ decided to make their stand in Iraq. This of course was planned by Bush et al.

Ahhhhhhhh.....that's it! It wasn't about WMD's, it was a carefully calculated effort at putting together a middle-eastern boxing ring that we and Al Qaida could duke it out in. Perfect!

Wait. Why didn't we just use Afghanistan and Pakistan since that's where they were?

OklahomaTuba

1/25/2007, 02:07 PM

Hopefully this is true. Sounds like things could be falling apart for once side of the insurgency.

There has been a flurry of press reports recently about insurgents battling American and Iraqi security forces on Haifa Street in Baghdad, and around the rural town of Buhruz in Diyala Province. These same insurgents also claimed to have shot down a Black Hawk helicopter near Buhruz. At the same time, the Americans and Iraqis are declaring a major victory as evidenced by the increased number of dead or captured militants, and the uncovering of massive weapons caches. So, what is going on?

What needs to be understood is the central role that Al Qaeda — or more accurately its successor organization, a group called the Islamic State of Iraq — is playing on these fronts and the diminishing role of all the other insurgent groups.

The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been captured yet are opting for a quieter life outside of Iraq. Al Qaeda continues to grow for the time being as it cannibalizes the other insurgent groups and absorbs their most radical and hardcore fringes into its fold. The Baathists, who had been critical in spurring the initial insurgency, are becoming less and less relevant, and are drifting without a clear purpose following the hanging of their idol, Saddam Hussein. Rounding out this changing landscape is that Al Qaeda itself is getting a serious beating as the Americans improve in intelligence gathering and partner with more reliable Iraqi forces.

In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment.

http://www.nysun.com/article/47363

OklahomaTuba

1/25/2007, 02:08 PM

Fugue

1/25/2007, 02:11 PM

http://www.chlforums.com/images/smiles/coach.gif

Vaevictis

1/25/2007, 02:33 PM

:rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Get which time period "at that time" is referring to now? Yep, that would be Persian Gulf War I.

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Straight from the Iraq Survey Group report. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/)

Scott D

1/25/2007, 06:10 PM

Pure comedy gold.

comedy isn't exactly one of his strengths.

The thing the original article left out is the primary reason that things are escalating to this stage. Iran still has eyes on invading and subduing Iraq into one 'supernation'.

JohnnyMack

1/25/2007, 07:43 PM

Tulsa Public Schools motto used to be "All Children Can Learn".

I think they lied. :rolleyes:

You're just swallowing whatever "truth" comes out of the White House at this point.

WILBURJIM

1/25/2007, 07:53 PM

I thought the Saudis were already funding the "sunni insurgency."

Most of the US "allies" in Iraq are shi'a and they have no loyalties to the US. We are just an efficient killing machine, at their disposal. We are taking care off their enemy and they don't have to raise a finger. Most would be loyal to a shi'a brother in Iran before an American or a sunni Iraqi.

From the New York Times:

Many of the Iraqi units that showed up late never seemed to take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, breaking dishes and rifling through personal CD collections in the apartments. Eventually the Americans realized that the Iraqis were searching no more than half of the apartments; at one point the Iraqis completely disappeared, leaving the American unit working with them flabbergasted.

Say all you want about sunni insurgents, baathists. They basically, all want the same thing.They were in power, now they aren't, and they are fighting to regain control of, or at least part of, the land called Iraq. The Saudis have helped the insurgents all along the way. They prefer the shi'a/sunni fighting be done in Iraq rather than around their oilfields.

The question for us Americans is: Should we keep fighting in someone else's war, considering that, no matter who wins said war, we will not be one bit safer?

soonerboomer93

1/25/2007, 08:11 PM

To me that's rather easy to answer. If we stay defensive, we will not be safer. The only way to remain safe is to remain offensive. The more we can control the fight, where the battles happen, where their focus is, the safer the general American public is.

Vaevictis

1/25/2007, 08:20 PM

comedy isn't exactly one of his strengths.

Yeah, but it's even funnier when the subject has no idea why he's being laughed at.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/25/2007, 08:27 PM

Yeah, but it's even funnier when the subject has no idea why he's being laughed at.You tell us then. Maybe I'll understand when you reveal the brilliant humor.

OCUDad

1/25/2007, 08:33 PM

You tell us then. Maybe I'll understand when you reveal the brilliant humor.No. You won't.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/25/2007, 08:34 PM

No. You won't.If it's truly funny, there's a good chance I will. You explain it.

Octavian

1/25/2007, 08:41 PM

You're just swallowing whatever "truth" comes out of the White House at this point.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2315/1075jv0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/25/2007, 09:01 PM

Liberals mocking Bush and the republicans normally isn't very funny, because it's based on stereotypes and hatred. There are rare occasions when they do have something funny to say, but it's not worth wading through all the hate speech. If md or whoever it was that said we invade Finland as a response was intended just to bait me or anyone conservative, then it's a practical joke and I get it. But, if there's any degree of sincerity in the comment, then it's just the usual boring(at best) cr*p from the left, and is questionable judgment in times of war, which is right now..

Scott D

1/25/2007, 09:25 PM

Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I want to be
Pony trekking or camping
Or just watching TV
Finland, Finland, Finland
It's the country for me

You're so near to Russia
So far from Japan
Quite a long way from Cairo
Lots of miles from Vietnam

Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I want to be
Eating breakfast or dinner
Or snack lunch in the hall
Finland, Finland, Finland
Finland has it all

You're so sadly neglected
And often ignored
A poor second to Belgium
When going abroad

Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I quite want to be
Your mountains so lofty
Your treetops so tall
Finland, Finland, Finland
Finland has it all

Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I quite want to be
Your mountains so lofty
Your treetops so tall
Finland, Finland, Finland
Finland has it all

Finland has it all

MojoRisen

1/25/2007, 10:10 PM

Ahhhhhhhh.....that's it! It wasn't about WMD's, it was a carefully calculated effort at putting together a middle-eastern boxing ring that we and Al Qaida could duke it out in. Perfect!

Wait. Why didn't we just use Afghanistan and Pakistan since that's where they were?

Afghanistan is very rough terrain and it doesn't have easy access for our equiptment tanks, troops and such having to go through non friendly countries to get there... Also too many places too hide that aren't accessible for our ground force...

We can walk right into Iraq-

WILBURJIM

1/25/2007, 10:26 PM

Also too many places too hide that aren't accessible for our ground force...

Yeah, that is called Pakistan. Great hiding spot. The jihadi paradise.

Jerk

1/25/2007, 10:27 PM

Don't even joke about invading Finland.

The U.S.S.R. invaded them sometime right around the late 30's or so, and Finland kicked the ever-living snot out of their commie a**es. This is the same Russia that was mostly responsible for the defeat of Hitler.

OklahomaTuba

1/26/2007, 08:58 AM

Get which time period "at that time" is referring to now? Yep, that would be Persian Gulf War I.

Straight from the Iraq Survey Group report. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/)

All he had to do was re-start it. He had all the tools, even the ISG says that.

You probably forgot about the 10+ tons of enriched uranium our troops had to cart out of the place.

OklahomaTuba

1/26/2007, 09:01 AM

You're just swallowing whatever "truth" comes out of the White House at this point.
Glad to know the NY Times & the "right wing controlled media" is doing the same thing then.

OklahomaTuba

1/26/2007, 09:04 AM

Looks like the secret war is becoming much less secret.

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502199.html

Vaevictis

1/26/2007, 02:23 PM

All he had to do was re-start it. He had all the tools, even the ISG says that.

Having all the tools is not the same as being less than a year away. Nor is it the same as having a program to develop them.

Lots of bad men have access to "all the tools", why not go after all of them? (For example, who the **** do you think is going to be running Pakistan after Musharraf?)

You probably forgot about the 10+ tons of enriched uranium our troops had to cart out of the place.

Weapons grade, or just low enriched? Link?

If it's just low enriched, that can only be weaponized as a dirty bomb. And I can make a dirty bomb out of nuclear material that is stripped off of old glow in the dark phosphor -- old watches, highway signs, etc.

Unless it was weapons grade, that's not even marginally important.

OklahomaTuba

1/26/2007, 02:59 PM

Having all the tools is not the same as being less than a year away. Nor is it the same as having a program to develop them.

Lots of bad men have access to "all the tools", why not go after all of them? (For example, who the **** do you think is going to be running Pakistan after Musharraf?)
Unfortunatly, Musharraf hasn't been threatening us or our allies the way Saddam was. Also, I do not believe he has ever actually used his weapons on people the way Saddam did. I think his support of terrorism should make him a target at some point, but to relate him to Saddam is pretty far fetched at best.

OklahomaTuba

1/26/2007, 03:02 PM

Weapons grade, or just low enriched? Link?

If it's just low enriched, that can only be weaponized as a dirty bomb. And I can make a dirty bomb out of nuclear material that is stripped off of old glow in the dark phosphor -- old watches, highway signs, etc.

Unless it was weapons grade, that's not even marginally important.

hmmm,

Of the uranium, 500 tons is naturally occurring ore or yellowcake, a slightly processed concentrate that cannot be directly used in a bomb. Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium, a more potent form but still not sufficient for a weapon.

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran," Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

OklahomaTuba

1/26/2007, 03:05 PM

Of course, nevermind that Saddam was hiding all the centrifuges in back yards and such..

Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

JohnnyMack

1/26/2007, 03:34 PM

Do you wear a tinfoil hat to bed?

Vaevictis

1/26/2007, 11:16 PM

Unfortunatly, Musharraf hasn't been threatening us or our allies the way Saddam was. Also, I do not believe he has ever actually used his weapons on people the way Saddam did. I think his support of terrorism should make him a target at some point, but to relate him to Saddam is pretty far fetched at best.

Again: Who do you think is going to be in charge of Pakistan AFTER Musharraf?

Do you honestly believe it's going to be someone friendly to us, considering that the majority of the population holds pretty anti-American sentiments? Do you honestly think that Bin Laden would be at large still without help from within both Pakistan's borders *and* government?

You're an assassination or a coup away from Al Qaeda having nuclear weapons. I consider that to be a much bigger threat than someone who might have had them in the future.

And what are we doing about Pakistan? Not much, other than selling them F-16s.

SleestakSooner

1/27/2007, 03:38 AM

http://fukung.net/images/1929/this_man_is_about_to_start_a_war.jpg

I think I see Bin Laden's cave that way men!

IB4OU

1/27/2007, 04:10 AM

-Do you honestly think that Bin Laden would be at large still without help from within both Pakistan's borders *and* government?

And what are we doing about Pakistan? Not much, other than selling them F-16s.

What exactly makes you think that that the Pakistani government is harboring Bin Laden? Has there been any evidence of this? I know they haven't been a lot of help on the border but they have taken a few high-level al-queda operatives with the help of the CIA.

Also, the F-16, while a versatile aircraft, is old news (over 30 years old). It's not like we're selling them F-15's or F-22's. Selling F-14's to Iran, at the time, was a much bigger deal and they're currently not doing them any good.

Ike

1/27/2007, 05:12 AM

What exactly makes you think that that the Pakistani government is harboring Bin Laden? Has there been any evidence of this? I know they haven't been a lot of help on the border but they have taken a few high-level al-queda operatives with the help of the CIA.

Also, the F-16, while a versatile aircraft, is old news (over 30 years old). It's not like we're selling them F-15's or F-22's. Selling F-14's to Iran, at the time, was a much bigger deal and they're currently not doing them any good.

Pakistan's government is between a rock and a hard place right now. They want to come across as our friends because they'd really be up **** creek if we decided we didn't like them anymore and threw our support behind India. At the same time, large swaths of their population, and indeed, much of their intelligence service are OPEN supporters of the taliban (which was essentially created by their intelligence service). They are cooperating with us, but only grudgingly. It seems to me that when we get good evidence of an AQ member in pakistan, they let us or help us go after him, but at the same time, I don't think that they are doing a lot to actively find Bin Laden, because doing so, IMHO, would probably be very bad for the government domestically.

afs

1/27/2007, 05:23 AM

http://fukung.net/images/1929/this_man_is_about_to_start_a_war.jpg

I think I see Bin Laden's cave that way men!

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/Clinton.jpg

Vaevictis

1/27/2007, 08:04 AM

What exactly makes you think that that the Pakistani government is harboring Bin Laden? Has there been any evidence of this? I know they haven't been a lot of help on the border but they have taken a few high-level al-queda operatives with the help of the CIA.

Other than the fact that we haven't caught dude, and it's a known fact that Al Qaeda hides out in Pakistan, no. I do not believe that it is official policy to help Al Qaeda, but I do believe that certain individuals or localized groups of individuals are assisting them, either proactively, or by simply turning a blind eye.

I also believe that as Ike mentioned, Murasharraf's hands are tied. He has to at least appear to us to be "enough" on our side, without appearing to his populace to be too much on our side. As I mentioned earlier, there is a lot of anti-American sentiment and civilian support for Al Qaeda's goals.

Also, the F-16, while a versatile aircraft, is old news (over 30 years old). It's not like we're selling them F-15's or F-22's. Selling F-14's to Iran, at the time, was a much bigger deal and they're currently not doing them any good.

The F-16 isn't next gen, that's true. But ask yourself -- if Musharraf is ousted tomorrow and we have to fly against Pakistan, what kind of aircraft do you think we'll be launching?

Given the geography, it's probably going to have to be carrier based, yes? IIRC, all of our carriers transitioned their air superiority craft to F-18E/F, yes?

Now, I'm no expert on military aircraft, but my guess based on basic specs and payload is that the F-18E/F is not a vastly superior air superiority craft compared to the F-16. (Superior, maybe. But not vastly) Maybe one of our AF people can weigh in.

(And of course, I'm just talking craft here, not training or support, which our guys will of course be superior in.)

AFAIK, the next gen carrier capable fighter is not scheduled to be deployed until 2011.

reevie

1/27/2007, 10:39 AM

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/Clinton.jpg

I had the same thought. Those GIs on the DMZ wouldn't purposely put lens caps on for a good picture would they?

Harry Beanbag

1/27/2007, 05:22 PM

Other than the fact that we haven't caught dude, and it's a known fact that Al Qaeda hides out in Pakistan, no. I do not believe that it is official policy to help Al Qaeda, but I do believe that certain individuals or localized groups of individuals are assisting them, either proactively, or by simply turning a blind eye.

I also believe that as Ike mentioned, Murasharraf's hands are tied. He has to at least appear to us to be "enough" on our side, without appearing to his populace to be too much on our side. As I mentioned earlier, there is a lot of anti-American sentiment and civilian support for Al Qaeda's goals.

The F-16 isn't next gen, that's true. But ask yourself -- if Musharraf is ousted tomorrow and we have to fly against Pakistan, what kind of aircraft do you think we'll be launching?

Given the geography, it's probably going to have to be carrier based, yes? IIRC, all of our carriers transitioned their air superiority craft to F-18E/F, yes?

Now, I'm no expert on military aircraft, but my guess based on basic specs and payload is that the F-18E/F is not a vastly superior air superiority craft compared to the F-16. (Superior, maybe. But not vastly) Maybe one of our AF people can weigh in.

(And of course, I'm just talking craft here, not training or support, which our guys will of course be superior in.)

AFAIK, the next gen carrier capable fighter is not scheduled to be deployed until 2011.

This expert analysis brought to you by the guy who thought we had nuclear powered destroyers.

Scott D

1/27/2007, 05:34 PM

I'd like to point out you'd be hard pressed to find an AF person who'd say the F-18 was better than the F-16, just like you'd be hard pressed to find a Naval/Marine Aviator who'd say the F-16 is better than the F-18...at least 'officially'.

IB4OU

1/27/2007, 07:06 PM

But ask yourself -- if Musharraf is ousted tomorrow and we have to fly against Pakistan, what kind of aircraft do you think we'll be launching?

Given the geography, it's probably going to have to be carrier based, yes? IIRC, all of our carriers transitioned their air superiority craft to F-18E/F, yes?

We would use bases in Afghanistan. The F-15E is still the king!

I found this article while searching for info in the F-18. Hell, the Navy & USMC pilots might even side with the F-16. :)

By CHRIS TOMLINSON, Associated Press Writer ABOARD THE USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT

When the U.S. Navy's F-14B Tomcats streak over Afghanistan dropping laser- and satellite-guided bombs, the legendary fighter planes represent the military's massive and modern firepower. However, when the VF-102 returns from Operation Enduring Freedom, the 12 Tomcats based on the USS Theodore Roosevelt will be turned in, and the pilots sent to train on a new generation of aircraft.

One of the Navy's most recognizable fighters, with the swept-back wings, is 30 years-old, older than some of the pilots that fly them. ``Tomcats are a piece of history, I feel lucky to have had the opportunity to fly a Tomcat,'' Lt. Matt, call sign "Rub,'' a 27-year-old from Blythe, Calif., said. ``It's a crime we have to transition to the FA/18.''

The squadron commander, Cmdr. Roy Kelley, said he will miss the plane he has flown for the last 15 years and still the world's fastest and most maneuverable fighter plane. ``About a year and a half ago, when I was told this squadron was going to transition to the F/A-18F, I wasn't really excited about it,'' said Kelley ``That's going to be the hard part, walking away from an airplane you are comfortable in. Especially since the whore nut F-18 is such a ___" . Kelley said his convictions were confirmed about the Super Hornet after visiting the Boeing production factory, then flew one earlier this year. `As far as I'm concerned the F/A18 is about as overated as it can be.''

Kelley also said that the Tomcats are'nt breaking down as often as Boeing publicists and PR 'spinners' would like the voters to believe. Lt. j.g. Dave Woods, in charge of the carriers general aviation maintenance department says, "The 20-30 year-old planes hardly show their age. And they're now considered ``low maintenance. They are very similar fine wine, the older it gets .. the better it gets,'' said Woods. ``A lot of the air frames seem to be getting stronger all the time.'' Indeed, when the F-14's are sitting in the carrier's hangar below the flight deck, maintenance crews have little to do because the air crews write-up so few gripes on them.

After the Theodore Roosevelt's current deployment, it will be sailed to California, where most of the pilots and weapon's officers will train on the Super Hornet [a short-range, two-seat [ in the opinion of many pilots .. piece of garbage] version of the F18C that Navy and one Marine squadron are currently flying off the Theodore Roosevelt.The current F18's are continually declaring low fuel emergencies. The new version is expected to exaserbate the situation.

All Navy F-14s, which can carry six and one-half tons of explosives, are scheduled to be retired by 2010. Kelley scoffed the Super Hornet's new technology, saying , " Hey, it's the same old Hornet ____, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said it can never match the Tomcat's long range, mach 1.8 speed and predator mystique. Kelley said when his wingman is in an F-18, he must be careful not to leave [ the slower plane] behind. "The Tomcat's speed is amazing, There's not another airplane in the Navy's inventory that can match it," Kelley, 40, said. ``You look at the plane on the ground it even looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal, fudge packing, cross dressing congressmen who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."

OklahomaTuba

1/27/2007, 08:59 PM

Again: Who do you think is going to be in charge of Pakistan AFTER Musharraf?
And then you ask why we didn't go after Pakistan?????

This isn't hard to figure out.

OklahomaTuba

1/27/2007, 09:00 PM

Do you wear a tinfoil hat to bed?
Heh, I guess all the facts and history and stuff is too much for JM once again.

:D

mdklatt

1/27/2007, 10:35 PM

This expert analysis brought to you by the guy who thought we had nuclear powered destroyers.

Well, is he wrong?

SoonerGirl06

1/27/2007, 10:47 PM

I say we just nuke the whole Middle East (except Israel) and be done with it. They're all entwined somehow or another and most of 'em want death to America. I say bring death to them before they bring it to us.

...but that's just my opinion.

Mjcpr

1/27/2007, 10:49 PM

jacru

1/27/2007, 10:50 PM

Don't call it a war. The democrats will want to lose it.

jacru

1/27/2007, 10:52 PM

Better get cracking on that nuclear fallout dome over Israel then.
With tactical nukes that won't be a problem.:cool:

SoonerGirl06

1/27/2007, 10:53 PM

Better get cracking on that nuclear fallout dome over Israel then.

Funny!

PS: I'll get the architects of the new Cowboys stadium right on it...:)

Jerk

1/27/2007, 10:59 PM

A little birdy told me that the F-16's we sold the Pakistanis don't have the most advanced avionics package available, but I'm drunk and I'm probably just imaging that.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/27/2007, 11:16 PM

Don't call it a war. The democrats will want to lose it.Excellent! But if hillary or obama get elected, we would have a green light given by congress to do any damn destruction we want. It will then be a "bold and decisive move".

Ike

1/27/2007, 11:21 PM

With tactical nukes that won't be a problem.:cool:
if you plan to use enough of them to wipe out the middle east, yes it will be.

SoonerGirl06

1/27/2007, 11:23 PM

Excellent! But if hillary or obama get elected, we would have a green light given by congress to do any damn destruction we want. It will then be a "bold and decisive move".

They're too passive to want to do anything destructive, except when it comes to our economy... they love to destroy the hell out of it with higher taxes, etc.

jacru

1/27/2007, 11:27 PM

if you plan to use enough of them to wipe out the middle east, yes it will be.
Just key sections of major towns. No problem. After all, we don't want to ruin the oil. :hot: hee hee.(consevative, earth plundering glee)

Harry Beanbag

1/28/2007, 12:45 PM

Well, is he wrong?

Yes. The U.S. Navy has never had nuclear powered destroyers.

Scott D

1/28/2007, 01:06 PM

A little birdy told me that the F-16's we sold the Pakistanis don't have the most advanced avionics package available, but I'm drunk and I'm probably just imaging that.

that's ok, they are equal to the ones we are selling to their 'enemy' India.

mdklatt

1/28/2007, 03:01 PM

Yes. The U.S. Navy has never had nuclear powered destroyers.

That's not what I was asking about. Is he wrong about the relative parity of F-16s and F-18s? The F-18 began life as the YF-17, which lost the Air Force's Lightweight Fighter competition to the YF-16. Northrop subsequently made some minor modifications and sold it to the Navy as the F/A-18. If I'm not mistaken, the latest F-16 mods even use the same radar (APG-68) as the F-18.

Harry Beanbag

1/28/2007, 09:34 PM

That's not what I was asking about. Is he wrong about the relative parity of F-16s and F-18s? The F-18 began life as the YF-17, which lost the Air Force's Lightweight Fighter competition to the YF-16. Northrop subsequently made some minor modifications and sold it to the Navy as the F/A-18. If I'm not mistaken, the latest F-16 mods even use the same radar (APG-68) as the F-18.

First off, I have no problem admitting I don't know for sure, just like there's nobody on this board, with the possible exception of Homey, that is qualified to answer that question. I just know there is a lot of military misinformation thrown out as fact on this board by our left leaning Sooners.

That being said, here is an interesting read on the subject...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtml

According to that link the new JSF F-35 will not be the Navy's new air superiority fighter, but will take over the more limited roll that the older F/A-18s play now. So it looks like we're stuck with the Superhornets for the next 30 years of carrier air superiority aircraft. I'd like to think they know what they're doing.

Vaevictis

1/29/2007, 12:17 AM

This expert analysis brought to you by the guy who thought we had nuclear powered destroyers.
(...)
Yes. The U.S. Navy has never had nuclear powered destroyers.

Heh, well, we did at one point. Then they reclassified them as cruisers, and then they decommissioned them. :D

EDIT: They were 'DLGN' classification -- "Destroyer Leader Guided-Missile Nuclear Propulsion", IIRC -- later reclassified as CGN.

Vaevictis

1/29/2007, 12:20 AM

And then you ask why we didn't go after Pakistan?????

This isn't hard to figure out.

I'm not asking why we're not going after Pakistan. I'm asking why our response to a country like that developing nukes is to sell them F-16s.

EDIT: And to tell the truth, I suspect it has to do with keeping a balance of power between Pakistan and India so that either side is too scared ****less to start anything that might escalate into nuclear war.

Harry Beanbag

1/29/2007, 06:25 AM

Heh, well, we did at one point. Then they reclassified them as cruisers, and then they decommissioned them. :D

EDIT: They were 'DLGN' classification -- "Destroyer Leader Guided-Missile Nuclear Propulsion", IIRC -- later reclassified as CGN.

Actually, the DL/DLG/DLGN classification was used for frigates. During the 1975 reclassification, the Navy simplified the way they classified ships from dozens of confusing and redundant terms to just a few. The DLG/DLGN became CG/CGN at that time.

There were four nuclear powered ships that actually operated at one point under the frigate classification (Bainbridge, Truxtun, California, and South Carolina) and underwent the change. The Virginia-class (Virginia, Texas, Mississippi, and Arkansas) were all commissioned after the change as CGN's. The other CGN, Long Beach, was always a cruiser due to her size.

Vaevictis

1/29/2007, 11:57 AM

Harry Beanbag

1/29/2007, 04:55 PM

Heh. You will, I hope then, understand my confusion at them naming the classification "Destroyer Leader", and the power plants they use as D1G/D2G (Destroyer 2nd Generation General Electric).

I figure that if all of the naming conventions applied to them say it's a destroyer, then hey, it's a destroyer. Silly me :D

EDIT: Also, apparently, the lines are blurry. For example, take the Wilkinson, which was a DD class ship (definately a destroyer), later reclassified as a DL. Or the Farragut or Coontz class ships which started out as DLs, and were later reclassified as DDGs (also definately destroyers). What that suggests to me is that frigates are destroyers, or destroyers are frigates, or that someone needs to make a decision as to what is what. :)

You're finally starting to understand why they reclassified everything, it was too confusing and antiquated. ;) Another interesting detail that adds to the confusion is the changing role and definition of the ships labeled as frigates throughout history, but I think the main reason these ships were originally classed as frigates was because they really didn't know what to do with them.

Essentially, the Navy was going through a metamorphosis between the old WWII style fleet with lots of guns to the modern era which replaced guns with missiles. In this respect, the nuclear powered surface ships (not carriers) were much more similar in role to the old battle cruisers (like the Indianapolis) than the traditional destroyers and frigates which existed mostly for escort and anti-submarine duties.

Here's a short explanation of the reclassification...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification

SleestakSooner

1/29/2007, 05:24 PM

When I was in the Navy during the late 80's I served on the USS Shenandoah (AD 44) (http://navysite.de/ad/ad44.htm) class destroyer tender. The ships main role was to provide support and repair capabilities to at-sea vessels, especially destroyers.

It was my understanding at the time that we serviced destroyers in a myriad of ways, one of the most important being disposal of their spent fuel rods from the nuclear propulsion engines.

No matter what name changes have taken place since then it is my belief that there were indeed destroyers which had nuclear powered engines.

Harry Beanbag

1/29/2007, 05:33 PM

SleestakSooner

1/29/2007, 06:01 PM

You are high.

Yeah I wasn't there, I didn't endure countless hazmat drills or work along side those whose main duty was to deal with these materials. It was all a THC induced hallucination I am sure. :mad:

Harry Beanbag

1/29/2007, 06:23 PM

Yeah I wasn't there, I didn't endure countless hazmat drills or work along side those whose main duty was to deal with these materials. It was all a THC induced hallucination I am sure. :mad:

For one, in the late '80s there was zero confusion as to whether or not there were nuclear powered destroyers or not.

Two, there is no way in God's green earth that the crew of a destroyer tender would be opening up a reactor vessel at sea to refuel it. No f'n way.

Three, hazmat does not include radioactive materials, much less spent fuel rods.

Four, the "engines" of a nuclear powered ship are not radioactive at all.

SleestakSooner

1/29/2007, 07:19 PM

Harry Beanbag

1/29/2007, 07:36 PM

Like I said, you call them cruisers, commonly called destroyers at the time. They used D1G and D2G naval reactor engines. The "D" standing for destroyer.

I never said anything about "refueling", AD's would occassionally take the radioactive waste and transport it to be properly disposed of. It may very well be that this was a service we performed mostly for subs, I am not truly aware of which vessels we did this for predominantly.

As for my use of hazmat, it may not be the proper term but you know what I meant. We did drills on how to handle radioactive materials all the time.

You brought up spent fuel rods, I didn't. If you want to talk about tenders handling other radioactive material, then I'll buy that.

The reactor and the engines are completely different things.

And no, cruisers were not commonly called destroyers at that time, sorry. Also, your use of the terms "may very well be", "it is my belief", and "I am not truly aware" doesn't help your credibility at all.

SleestakSooner

1/29/2007, 08:07 PM

Harry Beanbag

1/29/2007, 08:14 PM

You were 17... how do you know what they were called at the time? Just because I don't speak as if I know everything does not mean you should negate what I say. I have a personal pet peeve against know-it-alls and do not wish to sound like one.

The cruisers used destroyer class engines. I WAS there and did research and wrote stories about these things for the US Navy as a Navy Journalist. I am sorry if I do not recall everything that I witnessed or learned verbatum, but please don't sit there and try to tell me or this board that I don't have a clue.

kthx

I operated and maintained two D2G nuclear reactors on USS Arkansas CGN-41 from 1995-98.

http://navysite.de/cg/cgn41.htm

I decommissioned her in '98 and was one of the final 5 crew members attached to her. I know what I'm talking about, whether you like it or not.

Journalism and engineering are not the same.

Vaevictis

1/30/2007, 01:22 AM

You're finally starting to understand why they reclassified everything, it was too confusing and antiquated. ;)

I am starting to see. Basically you called me out because you're an ***. Fair enough.

If there was enough confusion within the branch itself as to whether something was a destroyer or a cruiser or a whatever that they had to rehaul the entire convention, why is it unreasonable for someone who wasn't in the branch to have that same confusion?

Clearly if they designate the ship a "Destroyer Leader" and the nuclear reactor as a reactor for destroyers, then someone was of the opinion that these ships were destroyers.

Harry Beanbag

1/30/2007, 06:41 AM

I am starting to see. Basically you called me out because you're an ***. Fair enough.

If there was enough confusion within the branch itself as to whether something was a destroyer or a cruiser or a whatever that they had to rehaul the entire convention, why is it unreasonable for someone who wasn't in the branch to have that same confusion?

Clearly if they designate the ship a "Destroyer Leader" and the nuclear reactor as a reactor for destroyers, then someone was of the opinion that these ships were destroyers.

I was simply correcting your ignorance from a thread a couple of weeks ago when you thought these "destroyers" were still in service so they could fire off your new found rail gun. If you think I'm an ***, that's fine. The labeling of an *** usually depends on perspective.

I grow weary of some of the bookworm leftists on this board with all their military "know how" who have never and would never serve this country but would rather ridicule it instead. Kind of reminds me of the King's son's lover in Braveheart who fruitily proclaims "I'm skilled in the art of war" right before the King throws him out the tower window.

Vaevictis

1/30/2007, 09:02 AM

I was simply correcting your ignorance from a thread a couple of weeks ago when you thought these "destroyers" were still in service so they could fire off your new found rail gun. If you think I'm an ***, that's fine. The labeling of an *** usually depends on perspective.

You corrected me then. It was noted. Your intent in this case was not to correct me, but rather to suggest that what I said about the F-18E/F probably not being a vastly superior air superiority craft with respect to the F-16 must be wrong because I was incorrect about destroyers having nuclear reactors.

I expect you used this approach because you don't know jack **** about the F-16 or F-18E/F, but you didn't want me to be right, and having no ability or desire to look into the matter yourself, you figured you'd take a rather weak approach and argue the man instead of the facts.

That sir, is being an ***.

I grow weary of some of the bookworm leftists on this board with all their military "know how" who have never and would never serve this country but would rather ridicule it instead.

shrug, I grow weary of righties who confuse criticism and dissent with being unpatriotic, and I also grow weary of individuals who have no facts to back up what they're saying, so they attack the individual instead.

Cry me a river.

OklahomaTuba

1/30/2007, 09:23 AM

shrug, I grow weary of righties who confuse criticism and dissent with being unpatriotic, and I also grow weary of individuals who have no facts to back up what they're saying, so they attack the individual instead.

Cry me a river.

Ironic, considering its usually the lefties who usually have no facts about anything, and do and say unpatriotic things on a regular basis.

Vaevictis

1/30/2007, 09:28 AM

Ironic, considering its usually the lefties who usually have no facts about anything, and do and say unpatriotic things on a regular basis.

Heh, both sides have that problem. There are certain righties who still swear that Iraq had WMD even after Bush has personally and publicly disavowed the notion.

Harry Beanbag

1/30/2007, 05:02 PM

You corrected me then. It was noted. Your intent in this case was not to correct me, but rather to suggest that what I said about the F-18E/F probably not being a vastly superior air superiority craft with respect to the F-16 must be wrong because I was incorrect about destroyers having nuclear reactors.

I expect you used this approach because you don't know jack **** about the F-16 or F-18E/F, but you didn't want me to be right, and having no ability or desire to look into the matter yourself, you figured you'd take a rather weak approach and argue the man instead of the facts.

That sir, is being an ***.

My intent wasn't to suggest that you must be wrong, but that your opinion should be questioned, there's a difference.

I already admitted that I don't know which is superior between those two planes, I've never flown either one of them and I'm guessing you haven't either. If Homey or afs has an opinion on the matter, I would gladly listen to them.

And what facts are you using by the way? The published specs and payload info? That's impressive. :rolleyes: The specs on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier top speed is 30+ knots. Any idea how fast they will actually move through the water?

I did post a link that explains that the new F-18s will be fulfilling the air superiority role for the Navy, which the F-16 does not do for the Air Force, for the foreseeable future. I hope for our pilot's sake that they have it right.

It makes no difference to me if you're correct or not. Personally I hope you aren't, but not so I can prove you wrong. In fact I never tried to prove you wrong on the fighter issue in the first place. Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually say than trying to be right all the time.

In actuality, after my initial jab at you about the fighters (which apparently hurt your feelings and I do apologize for that), I thought that I was educating you a little about a small corner of Naval history about a very unique type of ship. That was my intent anyway and I was trying to be friendly. Of course you couldn't stand to be wrong about anything so you took it the wrong way and ended up turning it into a ****ing match.

shrug, I grow weary of righties who confuse criticism and dissent with being unpatriotic, and I also grow weary of individuals who have no facts to back up what they're saying, so they attack the individual instead.

Cry me a river.

Never attacked you even though you've called me an *** twice now. By the way, is Sleestak your troll?

SoonerBorn68

1/30/2007, 05:43 PM

I grow weary of some of the bookworm leftists on this board with all their military "know how" who have never and would never serve this country but would rather ridicule it instead.

:D

Hey Vaevictus, Harry just decribed you perfectly. I mean, you're a knowledge pocessor of everything--provided you have a computer & can click on links to read up about the subject at hand.

OklahomaTuba

1/30/2007, 06:10 PM

Heh, both sides have that problem. There are certain righties who still swear that Iraq had WMD even after Bush has personally and publicly disavowed the notion.

Which is disappointing, considering we did find several hundred chemical shells, hundreds of tons of enriched uranium, centrifuges, etc.

The fact is, we did find WMD. Just not the mobile labs and quantities we were looking for when everyone was saying go.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/30/2007, 06:18 PM

Which is disappointing, considering we did find several hundred chemical shells, hundreds of tons of enriched uranium, centrifuges, etc.

The fact is, we did find WMD. Just not the mobile labs and quantities we were looking for when everyone was saying go.I remember hearing Bush on tv when he said we didn't find WMDs. I was shocked, after previouslyhearing about all the stuff you mentioned.
I still don't understand why he said that.

SoonerGirl06

1/30/2007, 10:26 PM

I remember hearing Bush on tv when he said we didn't find WMDs. I was shocked, after previouslyhearing about all the stuff you mentioned.
I still don't understand why he said that.

Me either. I'm really disappointed on how he folded on the issue of WMD's.

I wish he would stand up to the liberal media more and tell them to take a hike.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/31/2007, 12:45 AM

Me either. I'm really disappointed on how he folded on the issue of WMD's.

I wish he would stand up to the liberal media more and tell them to take a hike. He still thinks he can charm or reason with them. That's his main weakness, IMO.

SoonerGirl06

1/31/2007, 12:53 AM

He still thinks he can charm or reason with them. That's his main weakness, IMO.

You're probably right. I had hope that he would figure out before now that he just needs to stand up to the Dems and not back down. I know he's trying to do that now, but I think it's a little too little too late.

mdklatt

1/31/2007, 10:48 AM

several hundred chemical shells

Leftover from the early 90's and unusable.

hundreds of tons of enriched uranium

In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium — which could be used to make nuclear weapons — was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said.

After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm

This enriched uranium? That was also leftover from the the 90's? And was already known about by the IAEA? Or are you talking about something else?

The fact is, we did find WMD.

Relics from the Iran-Iraq war, which even the Bush administration itself admits is not what we thought we'd find. How delusional do you have to be to keep spinning when even politicians have given up that fight?

Vaevictis

1/31/2007, 03:07 PM

I already admitted that I don't know which is superior between those two planes, I've never flown either one of them and I'm guessing you haven't either. If Homey or afs has an opinion on the matter, I would gladly listen to them.

... which is exactly what I said in the first place. "Now, I'm no expert on military aircraft, but my guess based on basic specs and payload is that the F-18E/F is not a vastly superior air superiority craft compared to the F-16. (Superior, maybe. But not vastly) Maybe one of our AF people can weigh in."

And what facts are you using by the way? The published specs and payload info? That's impressive. :rolleyes: The specs on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier top speed is 30+ knots. Any idea how fast they will actually move through the water?

Basic specs, payload and some published pilot comments who have flown both planes. Not very strong, true, which is why I said the above. I was actually hoping someone in the know would comment.

I recently read an article written by an F-18E/F pilot who had the opportunity to cross-train on the F-16, and his conclusion was they each had their positives, that he preferred the F-18E/F, and that he wouldn't want to mess with either of them.

Take it for what it's worth. Maybe he was being well mannered, but I would normally expect a pilot to say his plane is better hands down if he felt that way.

But even if you assume that the F-18E/F is a vastly superior dogfighter wrt the F-16, the AMRAAM may equalize that. They both carry them, and you loose an AMRAAM there's a goodly chance you've killed them.

The main question I would have is the radar difference; the F-18E/F is going to have a better radar package and has some stealth technology incorporated, so I expect it will have the edge, but on the other hand, it's going to be flying near or over hostile airspace, so it's also possible that (initially at least, until we blow em up) the enemy will have local installations or other units that the F-16's will be able to leverage.

Again, that's just my inexpert analysis, but based on the facts I possess, it seems reasonable. And if someone has some useful fact that will change the calculus, I'm quite happy to hear it.

In actuality, after my initial jab at you about the fighters (which apparently hurt your feelings and I do apologize for that) I thought that I was educating you a little about a small corner of Naval history about a very unique type of ship. That was my intent anyway and I was trying to be friendly. Of course you couldn't stand to be wrong about anything so you took it the wrong way and ended up turning it into a ****ing match.

Hey, I like information. Information is good. You want to give me information, I'll listen all day long. You want to talk about cruisers v. destroyers v. carriers, formations, tactics, strategy, etc, I'm interested. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected, because decisions made on bad information are usually bad themselves.

But that's not how you started. You started by being an *** :D

Never attacked you even though you've called me an *** twice now. By the way, is Sleestak your troll?

Heh, don't take too much offense. I'm an *** all the time. Sometimes it helps when people point it out, so I can check myself; since it benefits me when that happens, I try to provide the same service to others.

Go back to your original comment, and what you were you were responding to. Read it with fresh eyes. You were being an *** :D

And no, no trolls. While I try to keep my real life identity separate from my online identity, when I write something or post something, it will always be under the same handle (or as similar as I can make it, anyway - sometimes Vaevictis is taken...)

JohnnyMack

1/31/2007, 05:08 PM

This thread is teh rulz.

Harry Beanbag

1/31/2007, 09:34 PM

... which is exactly what I said in the first place. "Now, I'm no expert on military aircraft, but my guess based on basic specs and payload is that the F-18E/F is not a vastly superior air superiority craft compared to the F-16. (Superior, maybe. But not vastly) Maybe one of our AF people can weigh in."

Basic specs, payload and some published pilot comments who have flown both planes. Not very strong, true, which is why I said the above. I was actually hoping someone in the know would comment.

I recently read an article written by an F-18E/F pilot who had the opportunity to cross-train on the F-16, and his conclusion was they each had their positives, that he preferred the F-18E/F, and that he wouldn't want to mess with either of them.

Take it for what it's worth. Maybe he was being well mannered, but I would normally expect a pilot to say his plane is better hands down if he felt that way.

But even if you assume that the F-18E/F is a vastly superior dogfighter wrt the F-16, the AMRAAM may equalize that. They both carry them, and you loose an AMRAAM there's a goodly chance you've killed them.

The main question I would have is the radar difference; the F-18E/F is going to have a better radar package and has some stealth technology incorporated, so I expect it will have the edge, but on the other hand, it's going to be flying near or over hostile airspace, so it's also possible that (initially at least, until we blow em up) the enemy will have local installations or other units that the F-16's will be able to leverage.

Again, that's just my inexpert analysis, but based on the facts I possess, it seems reasonable. And if someone has some useful fact that will change the calculus, I'm quite happy to hear it.

Hey, I like information. Information is good. You want to give me information, I'll listen all day long. You want to talk about cruisers v. destroyers v. carriers, formations, tactics, strategy, etc, I'm interested. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected, because decisions made on bad information are usually bad themselves.

But that's not how you started. You started by being an *** :D

Heh, don't take too much offense. I'm an *** all the time. Sometimes it helps when people point it out, so I can check myself; since it benefits me when that happens, I try to provide the same service to others.

Go back to your original comment, and what you were you were responding to. Read it with fresh eyes. You were being an *** :D

And no, no trolls. While I try to keep my real life identity separate from my online identity, when I write something or post something, it will always be under the same handle (or as similar as I can make it, anyway - sometimes Vaevictis is taken...)

You're right. You are an *** all the time. :D :D :D :D :D :rolleyes: