Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010 From: St. Louis Status: offline
I don't have any quibble with anything in the article because as far as I know, it's all true. It's just that it seems like it was written by a Lockheed-Martin lobbyist. I'm all for keeping Turkey from getting any of them and kicking them out of NATO at this point. We need to find a way (or the way) to cut Pakistan loose and work with India, too.
I don't have any quibble with anything in the article because as far as I know, it's all true. It's just that it seems like it was written by a Lockheed-Martin lobbyist. I'm all for keeping Turkey from getting any of them and kicking them out of NATO at this point. We need to find a way (or the way) to cut Pakistan loose and work with India, too.
It most likely was written by a L-M lobbyists. CNBC, Faux News, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT are all propaganda pieces for the Pentagon and State Department as well as the CIA.
Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010 From: St. Louis Status: offline
You mean the Israeli purchase of the F-35? I'm sure you were joking about Turkey being a stalwart ally. But with our current president, it's hard to keep track of who exactly our allies are.
You mean the Israeli purchase of the F-35? I'm sure you were joking about Turkey being a stalwart ally. But with our current president, it's hard to keep track of who exactly our allies are.
Sarcasm was intended. Turkey is a NATO member and just took a big dump on NATO's main plane manufacturer.
Did you not see Turkey chose the S400 over the F35?
Posts: 245
Joined: 10/8/2016 From: West Coast Status: offline
Because Caliph Erdogan never did anything to disrupt relations before then. Just another fact-based and objective choice.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusty1961
It most likely was written by a L-M lobbyists. CNBC, Faux News, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT are all propaganda pieces for the Pentagon and State Department as well as the CIA.
[Citation needed]
quote:
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
You mean the Israeli purchase of the F-35? I'm sure you were joking about Turkey being a stalwart ally. But with our current president, it's hard to keep track of who exactly our allies are.
Edgy...
< Message edited by FlyByKnight -- 7/20/2019 12:51:25 AM >
Stopped reading right there. Please, spare us the american agitprop.
Also, I thought politics are off topic and forbidden? Because if not, I will post articles from american press about how CIA and Mossad were arming al kaida and isis terrorists in Syria. And how terrorists, the ones who rape kids and chop up women for fun with knives, were treated for wounds in Israeli hospitals.
< Message edited by Timotheus -- 7/20/2019 12:58:06 AM >
Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?
Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project is years away and as a partner they saw problems with it so decided to get sth fast. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.
One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.
Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?
Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.
One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.
anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.
Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?
Well I can't say if the S400 has seen combat, but the Saudis have a lot of combat experience with the Patriot and they are disappointed with it's performance to the point they want and have bought the S400.
Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?
Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.
One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.
anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.
Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?
Well I can't say if the S400 has seen combat, but the Saudis have a lot of combat experience with the Patriot and they are disappointed with it's performance to the point they want and have bought the S400.
Respectfully I wish to see reports on this sire ? One knowledgeable soul once told me it was Rapier with long legs, deadly upwards of a very large gull.
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: oaltinyay
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusty1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: oaltinyay
Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?
Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.
One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.
anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.
Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?
Well I can't say if the S400 has seen combat, but the Saudis have a lot of combat experience with the Patriot and they are disappointed with it's performance to the point they want and have bought the S400.
Respectfully I wish to see reports on this sire ? One knowledgeable soul once told me it was Rapier with long legs, deadly upwards of a very large gull.
There are no reports on this, because it's simply not true. The Saudis are quite enamored with the Patriot system and have widely used it (successfully) to engage enemy SSBM from the "rebels" in Yemen. If any of their adversaries actually had a meaningful airforce, it would suit them well for that too. They have not purchased the S400, as they purchased the equally proven () THAAD system. They are aware of some of the strategic limitations (ala Turkey) that having Soviet...erm...Russian 'technicians' on their territory would entail too.
< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 7/21/2019 4:55:40 PM >
comments "What you fall to mention is the Saudis are using a different type of radar systems instead of the recommend ones I do believe that has effect on how well you can use the patriot missile defense system."
It's an interesting article, but clicking through the links I got more and more sceptical of it. It seems to be based mostly on reports on the website of The National Interest magazine, which are based on reports in the English version of the Jerusalem Post, which are based on Arabic reports in a Kuwaiti newspaper citing anonymous sources.
The mission is said to have involved two or three Israeli F-35s not only penetrating Iranian airspace undetected, but of them basically overflying the whole country, taking the time to circle Tehran and Isfahan and Shiraz and Bandar Abbas, photographing the defenses of each - and even 'secret underground facilities' - before leaving. (I can't speak with much authority about fueling, but just a straight line from the Iraqi border to Tehran to Bandar Abbas is longer than the F-35's publicly stated range.)
Also, the article says that this was just discovered by Iranian high command this month, and is the reason that they fired several prominent commanders, but the original Kuwaiti and Israeli articles were published in March 2018.
It's not impossible, and obviously there's no proof either way, but this is raising too many red flags for me.
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushakov
It's not impossible, and obviously there's no proof either way, but this is raising too many red flags for me.
You're entirely right. But I posted this mostly as a juxtaposition to ongoing posts from a particular forumite that decries everything NATO-produced (particularly American) is rubbish. And that every bit of kit from Russia is par excellance and inherently superior.
It's worth positing the hypothesis that maybe, just maybe, this airframe, this program, all these member countries that are in line for it aren't off their nut. And that maybe, just maybe, it may perform as or better than advertised.
So permit me my counter-post or counter-position articles. They may be specious or unlikely to withstand peer review journalistic integrity, but they're at least as possible as some of the other alternatives espoused elsewhere.
Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?
Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.
One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.
anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.
Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?
Well I can't say if the S400 has seen combat, but the Saudis have a lot of combat experience with the Patriot and they are disappointed with it's performance to the point they want and have bought the S400.
Respectfully I wish to see reports on this sire ? One knowledgeable soul once told me it was Rapier with long legs, deadly upwards of a very large gull.
The displeasure of the Sauds with the Patriot? If you wish I will get it (if I can find it), but given the Sauds are purchasing the S400 when they already have the Patriot shouldn't that tell you something?
It's not impossible, and obviously there's no proof either way, but this is raising too many red flags for me.
You're entirely right. But I posted this mostly as a juxtaposition to ongoing posts from a particular forumite that decries everything NATO-produced (particularly American) is rubbish. And that every bit of kit from Russia is par excellance and inherently superior.
It's worth positing the hypothesis that maybe, just maybe, this airframe, this program, all these member countries that are in line for it aren't off their nut. And that maybe, just maybe, it may perform as or better than advertised.
So permit me my counter-post or counter-position articles. They may be specious or unlikely to withstand peer review journalistic integrity, but they're at least as possible as some of the other alternatives espoused elsewhere.
Nice to know I'm living rent-free in your head! ;->
1. F35 is crap. I call it as I see it and as it is. 2. M16/M4 is also crap. 50+ years they still haven't overcome the design flaws. 3. Abrams isn't crap, it's just a tank and the era of the AFV is over.
Is it verboten to speak against American products? The king really has no clothes!
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010 From: Northern England Status: offline
I'm a bit behind the curve on the technological advances in the military since the end of the Cold war, but the idea that Russia has a technological edge or better weapons than NATO is certainly a hot take.
Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016 From: Toronto Canada Status: offline
I am uncertain if the love / hate / extreme differences in views on certain military systems or weapons is politically motivated or not ?
Using my most balanced tone:
1) Never assume that other nations weapons or systems work when NATO / American systems are noted to have flaws, gaps, or require potential improvements.
Since the 1940's
2) They very lessons of this game are forgotten. The Japanese Zero was a superior dog fighting aircraft with a better climb rate and turning radius than every American fighter through 1945. It had its own gaps which in the end doomed it; including progressive thinking in tactics to take advantage of its gaps.
2) Growing up as a young man 1970/80's - I was assured by many knowledgeable sources reporting the USSR had superior missile tech to NATO. They could plant an ICBM in Yankee stadium if fired at home base. Subsequent proofs over the years have demonstrated this to be false; Soviet missiles were as likely to hit Moscow as New York. This was recently displayed once more during the fight verses ISIS where Russian Cruise Missiles launched against anti Governmental Syrian forces (pro American) failed spectacularly.
I need not mention the Russian Aircraft carrier issues demonstrated.
3) The history of the F18 Hornet / Super Hornet is enlighting. Too big, too slow, to many design issues in 1979 .... and up until very recently it commanded air superiority in any and every theater it was engaged.
The lessons are:
* No systems / weapons are perfect as launched by any nation. We are perhaps more aware of Nato/American gaps because of Freedom of the Press.
* It takes sustained investment in development / improvement and tactics to project force far from the home front
* While many Nations have "good" weapons or systems on an individual basis - unless sustained investment to project that force exists (as above) they are only good for the home front / defense
* While many Nations have large military systems - they lack the sustained logistics to support any action far from the home front compared to America and her Nato Allies - to this day.
* If one uses a reasonable proxy to compare Nations ability to afford sustained investment - i.e. GDP per capita - one would see despite growth or size of economies America and her Nato Allies are the only Nations that can sustain such investment.
This may be even more true of the future where "demographics" suggest significant challenges for China / Russia ...but NOT for India / Turkey
< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 7/22/2019 1:29:52 PM >
_____________________________
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002 From: Northwestern Georgia, USA Status: offline
Sure is fun to read well-reasoned thoughts of thoughtful gentlemen (which is about 99.5% of this forum), especially about matters I have no knowledge of.
I am uncertain if the love / hate / extreme differences in views on certain military systems or weapons is politically motivated or not ?
Using my most balanced tone:
1) Never assume that other nations weapons or systems work when NATO / American systems are noted to have flaws, gaps, or require potential improvements.
Since the 1940's
2) They very lessons of this game are forgotten. The Japanese Zero was a superior dog fighting aircraft with a better climb rate and turning radius than every American fighter through 1945. It had its own gaps which in the end doomed it; including progressive thinking in tactics to take advantage of its gaps.
2) Growing up as a young man 1970/80's - I was assured by many knowledgeable sources reporting the USSR had superior missile tech to NATO. They could plant an ICBM in Yankee stadium if fired at home base. Subsequent proofs over the years have demonstrated this to be false; Soviet missiles were as likely to hit Moscow as New York. This was recently displayed once more during the fight verses ISIS where Russian Cruise Missiles launched against anti Governmental Syrian forces (pro American) failed spectacularly.
I need not mention the Russian Aircraft carrier issues demonstrated.
3) The history of the F18 Hornet / Super Hornet is enlighting. Too big, too slow, to many design issues in 1979 .... and up until very recently it commanded air superiority in any and every theater it was engaged.
The lessons are:
* No systems / weapons are perfect as launched by any nation. We are perhaps more aware of Nato/American gaps because of Freedom of the Press.
* It takes sustained investment in development / improvement and tactics to project force far from the home front
* While many Nations have "good" weapons or systems on an individual basis - unless sustained investment to project that force exists (as above) they are only good for the home front / defense
* While many Nations have large military systems - they lack the sustained logistics to support any action far from the home front compared to America and her Nato Allies - to this day.
* If one uses a reasonable proxy to compare Nations ability to afford sustained investment - i.e. GDP per capita - one would see despite growth or size of economies America and her Nato Allies are the only Nations that can sustain such investment.
This may be even more true of the future where "demographics" suggest significant challenges for China / Russia ...but NOT for India / Turkey
My politics are not germane to the posting. I working in the Military Industrial Complex.
Said employment, and studies of mine on the industry, have much more to do with my conclusions than anything else.
I care about the truth and nothing else; thus I don't bother voting as it is a scam.
Rusty have you not watched the vids about the M16/AR vs. the AK I suggested in the other thread ?? It was disproven in 2 seperate videos by 2 seperate uploaders that the unreliabilty of the M16 is a myth. Which only came about, as I understand it, that the first weapons issued had no cleaning kit and also the ammo was not 100% the best at first...someone wanted to save some $ in cheaper ammo for the new rifle. And this did not work well, but when problems were solved the AR is quite good (except probably "Mannstopwirkung" and range eg. compared to G3)
However with the other topics I kind of agree:
"1. F35 is crap. I call it as I see it and as it is. 2. M16/M4 is also crap. 50+ years they still haven't overcome the design flaws. 3. Abrams isn't crap, it's just a tank and the era of the AFV is over. 4. voting as it is a scam." 5. propaganda pieces for.........the CIA.
1. Yup- It seems the F35 is an ok aircraft to perhaps succeed the Harrier...but the Harrier still is bad ass and also looks better. But for this the price tag seeems way to high. Seems F35 will struggle against most modern SU30/35 etc versions (and their Chinese derivates ? I do not know much about the modern aircraft from China etc). Also the Eurofighter seems to be better in air combat. Possibly the F35 has a small advantage in BVR tho. Depends on who sees whom first and who shoots first. The Typhoon now has also a good LR missile btw. I was quite surprised to hear that the load out of F35 is quite small and it has an internal weapons bay (for "stealth") however if he shoots missiles or drops bombs the stealth is broken when the bay opens and then the F35 can be detected easily. When he uses weapons under the wings then the same story, not stealth will suffer..also wing loading is said to be quite high (= impacts manouvre eg.). Also not the fastest plane.. so has probs outmanouvering incoming missiles and also cannot outrun them...mhhhh..so must depend much on the ECM system...bit risky
2. Nope, see above (also are here not some people who served and can comment how they found the M16?)
3. Yes and no, yes to the first but the tank will always be very very welcome by every infantry commander. Just remember how glad the Germans in A´stan when they got as few "lowly" old Marders and 155mm SP guns. I also read an interview with British and Danish guys- (in case of the Danish it was in the Balcans, called Op. Bollebank (sp?) a few Leo1 helped them out greatly against the Serbs..
4. Yes, I have also come to the conclusion in the last 2-3 years, that voting mostly is a show for the "sheep"
5. At least it was partly the case (if it is still today I do not know), see CIAs Op. Mockingbird.
Edit to add this video about Op. Bollebank see how glad they were they had tanks...(only in DANISH tho):
(Note the comment by the Swedish soldier under video)
Edit2, here a cool historic video about the Marder some may not know it. Of course it is quite obsolete these days. I still like it more then the newer Puma - also I am kind of 80ties/early 90ties guy. After that I kind of lost interest in new millitary developments for some reason and in the 80ties the Marder was quite good. The BMP2 however might be a bit better perhaps cause it has 30mm gun and has a lower silouhette. But the Marder sounds and looks better :)
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OT: Fear of F-35 rewrites Iranian defense forces 
OT: Fear of F-35 rewrites Iranian defense forces - 
) THAAD system. They are aware of some of the strategic limitations (ala Turkey) that having Soviet...erm...Russian 'technicians' on their territory would entail too.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread