ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#426
#426
Velo Vol said:
Not sure if its the same video, but I just saw part of an hour-long propaganda film they have.

I don't know how anyone with a soul would want to be a part of such an outfit. It's not religion driving that kind of behavior. Not sure what it is.
Click to expand...

It was a propaganda film, probably ten minutes long. It was basically four guys in an SUV, two guys on the passenger side in particular with AK's, riding up and down the highway gunning everyone that they could. The victims were not armed, not in military clothing, military cars, not engaged with the shooters, just driving on the highway like normal citizens. There was 10+ cars with multiple people in each.

There was also a scene of them running down a guy in a field and another of a couple just walking down the street.

There appeared no rhyme or reason for the acts. Just pure evil.
 
#429
#429
Grand Vol said:
Or lack thereof. And I recall when the USAF was planning on it being the F/A-22 and that got canned. And then in searching for a mission, they wanted it to do route clearance when we were in Iraq...which the same could be done by a C-130.

It's really hard to find the mission past the initial two weeks or most conflicts the US is currently or might be involved with at this point in time. Which right now the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and A-10 are holding their own.

They don't want me in charge of the Defense Department for six months. It would not be pretty...
Click to expand...

Yep, a fighter only aircraft at that cost makes little sense. We could throw up some 15's or 18's with tanker and jammer escorts and almost be just as effective. And with the focus on UAVs right now, its only a matter of time before they develop into air-to-air fighters.

Outside of a conflict with maybe China or Russia, and even then in limited circumstances, I'm not sure where the 22 fits in our current force structure.
 
#430
#430
Grand Vol said:
I'm not sure. That's an American design that's obviously inferior to whatever the British are using.

Oh wait...
Click to expand...

Nope great American invention as I hope the F-35 will prove to be seeing as the British gov has ordered a whole bunch of them.
 
#431
#431
alexmanu said:
I didn't know you could "drive" a fighter jet! Maybe I could join the RAF now seeing as I have a drivers licence! lol and external stores is a pretty self-explanatory term.
Click to expand...

I think you may have missed the humor.
 
#432
#432
rjd970 said:
I don't know. The Navy wanted short take off and landing and with upgraded F-18 super hornets aren't fully vested in the program, the marines wanted vertical take off and landing and are just fine with their harrier's anyway, and the air force didn't care, they just wanted more F-22's.

The whole program wasn't well thought out in my opinion. in the long run the JSF program was supposed to be an upgrade at reduced cost, but that seems to be a fairy tale at this point.
Click to expand...

I've heard a theory, from various people, that say the JSF program was/is nothing more than budgetary front for parallel black projects.
 
#434
#434
PKT_VOL said:
It was a propaganda film, probably ten minutes long. It was basically four guys in an SUV, two guys on the passenger side in particular with AK's, riding up and down the highway gunning everyone that they could. The victims were not armed, not in military clothing, military cars, not engaged with the shooters, just driving on the highway like normal citizens. There was 10+ cars with multiple people in each.

There was also a scene of them running down a guy in a field and another of a couple just walking down the street.

There appeared no rhyme or reason for the acts. Just pure evil.
Click to expand...

I saw that earlier today. It's a scene from a much longer (about an hour) propaganda video called "Saleel Sawarim" (I think). The content is pretty horrendous.
 
#436
#436
rjd970 said:
Yep, a fighter only aircraft at that cost makes little sense. We could throw up some 15's or 18's with tanker and jammer escorts and almost be just as effective. And with the focus on UAVs right now, its only a matter of time before they develop into air-to-air fighters.

Outside of a conflict with maybe China or Russia, and even then in limited circumstances, I'm not sure where the 22 fits in our current force structure.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. And that's a fact the USAF has been hiding ever since the platform entered service. The questions were asked during Odyssey Dawn of why the F-22 wasn't taking part and they answered with "mumble, mumble, lack of datalink compatibility with NATO, mumble, mumble."

And apparently that was a planned upgrade since the aircraft leaving the factory didn't have it installed as a cost cutting measure. It's sad when you have to search for a mission for a $150 million aircraft. At least the F-15 and F-16 evolved over time. I just don't see that happening with the F-22.
 
#438
#438
PKT_VOL said:
I've heard a theory, from various people, that say the JSF program was/is nothing more than budgetary front for parallel black projects.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I've never heard that, but anything is possible I guess. The F-117 started development in the 70's, so there's no telling what they could be working on behind closed doors.
 
#439
#439
PKT_VOL said:
I've heard a theory, from various people, that say the JSF program was/is nothing more than budgetary front for parallel black projects.
Click to expand...

The Stargate Program?

I could get down with funding something like that.
 
#440
#440
alexmanu said:
Brits also use the Tomahawk BTW ;). It's a bit on the pricey side though!
Click to expand...

Yes genius, I know this. Hence the "oh wait..." comment.

You might be surprised how much I know about your military and the equipment they use.
 
#441
#441
Grand Vol said:
It doesn't. And that's a fact the USAF has been hiding ever since the platform entered service. The questions were asked during Odyssey Dawn of why the F-22 wasn't taking part and they answered with "mumble, mumble, lack of datalink compatibility with NATO, mumble, mumble."

And apparently that was a planned upgrade since the aircraft leaving the factory didn't have it installed as a cost cutting measure. It's sad when you have to search for a mission for a $150 million aircraft. At least the F-15 and F-16 evolved over time. I just don't see that happening with the F-22.
Click to expand...

It's the new Ferrari on the block, that's all the USAF wants. Never mind the fact it isn't practical in the least for doing anything useful.
 
#442
#442
Grand Vol said:
Yes genius, I know this. Hence the "oh wait..." comment.

You might be surprised how much I know about your military and the equipment they use.
Click to expand...

Clearly eclipses your knowledge of foreign politics I'm sure! And it's 2am here so my brain is tuned out to sarcasm :snoring:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#443
#443
alexmanu said:
Nullifies your point about it not being easy to do with out massive civilian casualties. I mean ISIS has a number of large convoys that would be easy targets.
Click to expand...

Not in the least you ignorant ****. The lethal blast radius of the tomahawk is damn near 200 feet, which means that in using it you are committed to killing everything over almost an entire ****ing acre.

As for their exposed convoys, those pictures represent a fraction of the Isis members, as plenty have stayed behind to hold down Mosul, Bayji, and Tikrit. So, the first strike would not debilitate Isis. After the first strike, Isis would move much more furtively.
 
#444
#444
therealUT said:
Not in the least you ignorant ****. The lethal blast radius of the tomahawk is damn near 200 feet, which means that in using it you are committed to killing everything over almost an entire ****ing acre.

As for their exposed convoys, those pictures represent a fraction of the Isis members, as plenty have stayed behind to hold down Mosul, Bayji, and Tikrit. So, the first strike would not debilitate Isis. After the first strike, Isis would move much more furtively.
Click to expand...

You get angry way too easily TRUT. Logical solution use the Tomahawks on these exposed convoys, regardless if they are a fraction or not and provide air support to Iraqi ground forces re-taking the cities. That is what I think will happen anyway, Obama has re positioned the USS George HW Bush and I think he'll choose to take action. You will hate him for it but you hate him anyway so meh the sun still rises.
 
#445
#445
TRUT, whats your objection here, if any? If the conflict results in a single innocent casualty, then it isn't worth it? Or conflict just isn't a fruitful enterprise to begin with? I'm seriously asking here, not sure what you are trying to say.
 
#446
#446
alexmanu said:
You get angry way too easily TRUT. Logical solution use the Tomahawks on these exposed convoys, regardless if they are a fraction or not and provide air support to Iraqi ground forces re-taking the cities. That is what I think will happen anyway, Obama has re positioned the USS George HW Bush and I think he'll choose to take action. You will hate him for it but you hate him anyway so meh the sun still rises.
Click to expand...

Calling you an ignorant **** is just the objective, impassioned truth. As for providing air support, again, with what platforms and where will these asserts be stationed? The choice is going to be between committing to high civilian casualties or committing troops to hold airfields and FARPs in Iraq in order to use assets with weapons systems that are much more surgical.
 
#447
#447
alexmanu said:
Clearly eclipses your knowledge of foreign politics I'm sure! And it's 2am here so my brain is tuned out to sarcasm :snoring:
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who stated Jon Huntsman was the most electable candidate and claimed Al Gore would have been a good President, I'm sure your knowledge of international politics exceeds mine based on sheer stupidity.
 
#448
#448
rjd970 said:
TRUT, whats your objection here, if any? If the conflict results in a single innocent casualty, then it isn't worth it? Or conflict just isn't a fruitful enterprise to begin with? I'm seriously asking here, not sure what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

My objection rests in the fact that the actions available either commit us to causing massive civilian casualties or committing troops on the ground.
 
#449
#449
rjd970 said:
It's the new Ferrari on the block, that's all the USAF wants. Never mind the fact it isn't practical in the least for doing anything useful.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I spent 20 years in the Air Force watching that disaster and the initial stages of the F-35 disaster. I know very well where practicality ended.
 
#450
#450
therealUT said:
Calling you an ignorant **** is just the objective, impassioned truth. As for providing air support, again, with what platforms and where will these asserts be stationed? The choice is going to be between committing to high civilian casualties or committing troops to hold airfields and FARPs in Iraq in order to use assets with weapons systems that are much more surgical.
Click to expand...

Naughty naughty, no need for name-calling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top