Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
This reworking of that article about super-fuzes adds much more detail and background. Excellent article on a generally excellent site.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Since the foreign policy of this administration is going to be measured in body bags rather than State Department dinners, I'll just throw this little Aesop's Fable out there.
Note: the CW in the industry is this is actually a fair telling of the situation, which is ridiculous.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Wait, the raptor had been out for a while. How I. The hell did the AIM-9X not come with it from day 1? Wasn't the raptor meant as a dog fighter instead of a bomber? I think that was the case, but realizing that dog fights don't occur anymore, they repurposed it and are finally getting around to the most basic of the close air weapons?Code:As of 9/21/10: As of 9/13/10: College Hockey 6 College Football 0 BTHC 4 WCHA FC: 1
Originally posted by SanTropezMay your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.Originally posted by bigblue_dlI don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..Originally posted by KeplerWhen the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View PostWait, the raptor had been out for a while. How I. The hell did the AIM-9X not come with it from day 1? Wasn't the raptor meant as a dog fighter instead of a bomber? I think that was the case, but realizing that dog fights don't occur anymore, they repurposed it and are finally getting around to the most basic of the close air weapons?Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
While I agree it seems silly, and you'd put your best and most lethal tech on your best and most lethal fighter right off the bat, I can see that if you have to make choices, upgrading older fighters that a) we have a lot more of, b) are more susceptible in a dog fight than the F-22, and c) are somewhat more likely to be engaged in a dogfight, might be a choice you'd make first to improve the overall performance of the entire force.
As noted, the chances of an F-22 ever being in a dog fight are very slim. Even without stealth tech, up close encounters for any fighters are rare, in part, because of stand off weapons. Over Iraq, Tomcats had almost no engagements because as soon as they'd light up the radar on their (now retired) AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at 120 miles out, the Iraqi's would (wisely) turn tail and run. And given the F-22's superior performance characteristics, any opposing pilot would have to be kind of nuts to engage if they could even find them, which they can't until it's too late.
In a conventional situation, by the numbers, with stealth tech and the improved AMRAAM's effectiveness out to 100 miles, a squadron of 20 F-22's should be able to take out up to 70 opposition fighters with very high confidence long before anyone knows the F-22's are even there. Follow on F-16's escorting SAM suppression and strike packages would probably be more likely to hook up with any stragglers. (The ones that had no place to go because a flight of B-2's out of Missouri have already taken out all the airfields.)
Fortunately, we are pretty far ahead of everyone when it comes to air superiority, although the Chinese do have some pretty spiffy new aircraft in development, so it does behoove us to straighten up and fly right, so to speak.
We do stupid stuff all the time in defense but I'm never sure whether it's incompetence or by actual design. I was reading about these awesome new JASSM-ER missiles we have. (Highly accurate 2000 lb. air to surface missiles with 600 mile+ range.) But they are several inches too long to fit inside the F-35's missile bay. They can be carried externally, but then of course, that ruins the stealth signature that we spent billions figuring out.Originally posted by WiscTJKI'm with Wisko and Tim.Originally posted by Timothy AOther than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View PostWhile I agree it seems silly, and you'd put your best and most lethal tech on your best and most lethal fighter right off the bat, I can see that if you have to make choices, upgrading older fighters that a) we have a lot more of, b) are more susceptible in a dog fight than the F-22, and c) are somewhat more likely to be engaged in a dogfight, might be a choice you'd make first to improve the overall performance of the entire force.
As noted, the chances of an F-22 ever being in a dog fight are very slim. Even without stealth tech, up close encounters for any fighters are rare, in part, because of stand off weapons. Over Iraq, Tomcats had almost no engagements because as soon as they'd light up the radar on their (now retired) AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at 120 miles out, the Iraqi's would (wisely) turn tail and run. And given the F-22's superior performance characteristics, any opposing pilot would have to be kind of nuts to engage if they could even find them, which they can't until it's too late.
In a conventional situation, by the numbers, with stealth tech and the improved AMRAAM's effectiveness out to 100 miles, a squadron of 20 F-22's should be able to take out up to 70 opposition fighters with very high confidence long before anyone knows the F-22's are even there. Follow on F-16's escorting SAM suppression and strike packages would probably be more likely to hook up with any stragglers. (The ones that had no place to go because a flight of B-2's out of Missouri have already taken out all the airfields.)
Fortunately, we are pretty far ahead of everyone when it comes to air superiority, although the Chinese do have some pretty spiffy new aircraft in development, so it does behoove us to straighten up and fly right, so to speak.
We do stupid stuff all the time in defense but I'm never sure whether it's incompetence or by actual design. I was reading about these awesome new JASSM-ER missiles we have. (Highly accurate 2000 lb. air to surface missiles with 600 mile+ range.) But they are several inches too long to fit inside the F-35's missile bay. They can be carried externally, but then of course, that ruins the stealth signature that we spent billions figuring out.U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
I spell Failure with UAF
Originally posted by UAFIceAngelBut let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAAOriginally posted by Doyle WoodyBest sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Originally posted by Jimjamesak View PostThey thought the same thing in Vietnam...Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Originally posted by Jimjamesak View PostThey thought the same thing in Vietnam...
Me either.
In strictly speaking here of establishing air superiority, creating a No Fly Zone, or destroying/suppressing enemy aircraft, there is no place in the world the US couldn't do it in short order given the motivation. Except perhaps for mainland China where the numbers are more problematic. We have more and a better but it would take a good bit longer, I'd guess.
Originally posted by Kepler View PostNever get involved in a land war in Asia.
Never go in against a Sicilian (or an F-22?) when death is on the line!Originally posted by WiscTJKI'm with Wisko and Tim.Originally posted by Timothy AOther than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View PostWhile I agree it seems silly, and you'd put your best and most lethal tech on your best and most lethal fighter right off the bat, I can see that if you have to make choices, upgrading older fighters that a) we have a lot more of, b) are more susceptible in a dog fight than the F-22, and c) are somewhat more likely to be engaged in a dogfight, might be a choice you'd make first to improve the overall performance of the entire force.
As noted, the chances of an F-22 ever being in a dog fight are very slim. Even without stealth tech, up close encounters for any fighters are rare, in part, because of stand off weapons. Over Iraq, Tomcats had almost no engagements because as soon as they'd light up the radar on their (now retired) AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at 120 miles out, the Iraqi's would (wisely) turn tail and run. And given the F-22's superior performance characteristics, any opposing pilot would have to be kind of nuts to engage if they could even find them, which they can't until it's too late.
In a conventional situation, by the numbers, with stealth tech and the improved AMRAAM's effectiveness out to 100 miles, a squadron of 20 F-22's should be able to take out up to 70 opposition fighters with very high confidence long before anyone knows the F-22's are even there. Follow on F-16's escorting SAM suppression and strike packages would probably be more likely to hook up with any stragglers. (The ones that had no place to go because a flight of B-2's out of Missouri have already taken out all the airfields.)
Fortunately, we are pretty far ahead of everyone when it comes to air superiority, although the Chinese do have some pretty spiffy new aircraft in development, so it does behoove us to straighten up and fly right, so to speak.
We do stupid stuff all the time in defense but I'm never sure whether it's incompetence or by actual design. I was reading about these awesome new JASSM-ER missiles we have. (Highly accurate 2000 lb. air to surface missiles with 600 mile+ range.) But they are several inches too long to fit inside the F-35's missile bay. They can be carried externally, but then of course, that ruins the stealth signature that we spent billions figuring out.
All our technology advantage could be ruined by a well placed hack.CCT '77 & '78
4 kids
5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)
”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).
I want to live forever. So far, so good.
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Originally posted by joecct View PostAll our technology advantage could be ruined by a well placed hack.
But still, our biggest advantage is what it has always been: logistics. Guys with clipboards won WW2 -- German equipment and personnel were far superior, but we had a sh-tload of factories beyond bomber range.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View PostWhile I agree it seems silly, and you'd put your best and most lethal tech on your best and most lethal fighter right off the bat, I can see that if you have to make choices, upgrading older fighters that a) we have a lot more of, b) are more susceptible in a dog fight than the F-22, and c) are somewhat more likely to be engaged in a dogfight, might be a choice you'd make first to improve the overall performance of the entire force.
As noted, the chances of an F-22 ever being in a dog fight are very slim. Even without stealth tech, up close encounters for any fighters are rare, in part, because of stand off weapons. Over Iraq, Tomcats had almost no engagements because as soon as they'd light up the radar on their (now retired) AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at 120 miles out, the Iraqi's would (wisely) turn tail and run. And given the F-22's superior performance characteristics, any opposing pilot would have to be kind of nuts to engage if they could even find them, which they can't until it's too late.
In a conventional situation, by the numbers, with stealth tech and the improved AMRAAM's effectiveness out to 100 miles, a squadron of 20 F-22's should be able to take out up to 70 opposition fighters with very high confidence long before anyone knows the F-22's are even there. Follow on F-16's escorting SAM suppression and strike packages would probably be more likely to hook up with any stragglers. (The ones that had no place to go because a flight of B-2's out of Missouri have already taken out all the airfields.)
Fortunately, we are pretty far ahead of everyone when it comes to air superiority, although the Chinese do have some pretty spiffy new aircraft in development, so it does behoove us to straighten up and fly right, so to speak.
We do stupid stuff all the time in defense but I'm never sure whether it's incompetence or by actual design. I was reading about these awesome new JASSM-ER missiles we have. (Highly accurate 2000 lb. air to surface missiles with 600 mile+ range.) But they are several inches too long to fit inside the F-35's missile bay. They can be carried externally, but then of course, that ruins the stealth signature that we spent billions figuring out.Code:As of 9/21/10: As of 9/13/10: College Hockey 6 College Football 0 BTHC 4 WCHA FC: 1
Originally posted by SanTropezMay your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.Originally posted by bigblue_dlI don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..Originally posted by KeplerWhen the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View PostI'll believe the Chinese have a fancy new aircraft when I see it. They have zero technological creativity. Impeccable at stealing and replication, but in the end, some sleazball business is going to cut major corners and the things will fall out of the sky."The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984
"One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir
"Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View PostI'll believe the Chinese have a fancy new aircraft when I see it. They have zero technological creativity. Impeccable at stealing and replication, but in the end, some sleazball business is going to cut major corners and the things will fall out of the sky.
I don't even think the Chinese are that good at stealing stuff. The MIC needs a potent enemy to keep the money coming in. If it doesn't have one, it invents one.
It always seems like the Chinese steal block n tech right when the block n+1 tech is coming up for approps. Coincidence, I'm sure.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais
Beyond the tech advantages, I'd also add that the US probably has the best pilots by a good margin (just like Apollo and Starbuck were) by virtue of the fact we buy the most seat time by a good margin.Originally posted by WiscTJKI'm with Wisko and Tim.Originally posted by Timothy AOther than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?
Comment
Comment