0
   

SU-34: Coming after Obunga's ISIS butt buddies....

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 01:13 am
@gungasnake,
We just spent $13 billion to buy and will spent $7 million a day to operate an aircraft carrier.....which will be at the bottom of the sea almost as soon as the shooting starts.....
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 02:57 am
@hawkeye10,
It would take a direct hit with a tactical nuke to sink a modern US carrier. Look at the way the USS Cole stayed afloat with that massive hole beneath the waterline. The Cole is rather flimsy compared to a modern carrier.

Why does everyone always assume that if there is a serious war, the first thing the US is going to do is sail all of our carriers within range of heavy shore defenses and let them be pummeled? It's certainly not what I'd do if I were planning US strategy.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 03:09 am
@oralloy,
did u see this?
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/carriers-crucial-in-war-with-china-but-air-wing-is-all-wrong-hudson/
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 05:40 am
@hawkeye10,
Not until you posted it. But I agree that we are making bad choices regarding the aircraft that we put on carriers.

Up through the 1991 Iraq war, we had A-6 Intruders on our carriers. These planes could bomb targets 1,000 miles away from the carrier without refueling (and further yet if we refueled them).

They started to wear out in the mid 1990s so we took them off the carriers without replacing them with anything similar. Since then, our carriers have been much less capable.

You may have heard about the unmanned aircraft that we are possibly developing for our carriers. They will have enough range to be a replacement for the old A-6 Intruders. Congress is insisting that these unmanned aircraft have stealth capability and a bomb load similar to a typical fighter. However, the Navy sees this as a threat to manned aviation, and is fighting tooth and nail to strip this unmanned plane of stealth and to prevent it from carrying a significant bomb load.

Congress is fighting hard for their version of the plane though, because they want our carriers to be able to launch land attacks from beyond the range of shore defenses. It's too soon to tell which side will win.

I don't agree with the article's suggestion that submarines and long-range bombers be used to simply clear out a safe region for the carriers to attack. If the Navy succeeds in sabotaging the land attack capabilities of the carriers, the carriers can be put to good use interdicting enemy shipping far from enemy shores. The bombers should be attacking enemy targets directly instead of trying to clear a path for carriers to do the same thing. Our submarines should be focused on clearing the seas of enemy submarines.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 05:50 am
@oralloy,
I think we are relying on the multi-forms of the F 35 to become a multi threat vehicle for qll services. At the same time we are developing this "link 16" communications net that hqs, as its ultimte goal, the developmnt of a mostly unmanned aircraft service that is linked to all participqnts within a theater.
Im not sure how that would work when someone else is merely trying to sever our satellite communications to render us blind.

I know weve hqad sat qnd communications severing capabilities for years but, as far as I know, if anyone is successful at severing them, the other side hqs no reasonable "plan B" (unless there are other layers of satellites already out there)

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 06:22 am
@farmerman,
When I saw the F35 for the first time I was embarased, even though I get a check every month from the company that builds them.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 07:39 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I think we are relying on the multi-forms of the F 35 to become a multi threat vehicle for qll services.

In my opinion the Air Force should resume purchases of the F-22 and the Navy should buy either the Dassault Rafale or Saab Gripen.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 07:40 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
When I saw the F35 for the first time I was embarased, even though I get a check every month from the company that builds them.

The B version is a decent replacement for the Harrier Jump Jets used by the UK and the Marines.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 09:38 am
@oralloy,
In close air support the F35 is too fast. With the ducted fan running it's a sitting duck. If I'm the grunt on the ground, I'd rather see a Harrier (or better yet, an A10) with updated weaponry show up any day. And we could send a bunch more of them for the price. Range & speed aren't as important in that scenario.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 04:06 pm
Turkey is now a huge liability for NATO — and America

Quote:
When Turkey entered the NATO defense alliance in 1952, it was a major coup for Europe and for America. Turkey had control of the strategically important Bosphorus Strait and the Dardanelles. The NATO alliance could therefore exercise a preemptively tight grip on the Soviet Union's only direct access to Western warm-water ports. Furthermore, Turkey was a secular doorway into the resource-rich Middle East.

But it's now 2015. The Soviet Union has been dead and gone for a quarter of a century. The Middle East is an absolute mess. And 63 years after joining the alliance, Turkey has turned into one of NATO's and America's biggest liabilities in the region. Indeed, there seems to be no hope of re-balancing this alliance to make it a positive one for the West.

The presumption of shared values between Turkey and the West is disappearing. Ataturk's secular state in Turkey is long gone, and Recep Erdogan is slowly putting together a more Islamic state in its place. Press freedoms are being destroyed, clear evidence that Turkey is no longer part of the free world.

Consequently, the terms of the debate between Turkey and Russia have changed since the Cold War, or really, reverted to their more traditional form. Turkey and Russia see each other not just as once-great powers that are often at odds, but as religious-political rivals dating back to the years of Islamic expansion against Christendom. Leaders of both countries use their religious history, perhaps cynically, to justify to their respective publics their foreign policy in the Middle East. NATO was an alliance of the Free World versus Communism. But now, the more resonant axis of conflict between Russia and Turkey is the Ottoman Empire versus Orthodoxy.

Turkey's interests no longer align neatly with the West's. Erdogan's own son is accused of collaborating with ISIS to transport ISIS's oil through Turkey. Turkey has been reckless with Europe's security, by allowing jihadists to travel through it both coming from Europe and returning from the battlefields of Syria. Turkey's major strategic goals in the Syrian civil war do not align with our own, since their first-order concerns are to prevent the Kurds from gaining strength to attack the Turkish state, and to protect Turkmen living in Syria. Removing Bashar al-Assad from power is a lesser goal for them. Defeating ISIS hardly rates at all.


Another huge problem: The NATO alliance creates a moral hazard through its security guarantee to Turkey. Although Turkey has not yet invoked Article 5 — which obliges every member to act in concert in defense of another member — our needy, unstable, and burgeoning dictatorship of an ally acts in increasingly provocative ways, like shooting down a Russian jet, precisely because no one on the Russian or NATO side really wants to put Article 5 to the test. Turkey is now the state in NATO most likely to reveal Article 5 as a bluff, thereby putting the security of nations like Estonia or even Poland into doubt, or precipitating a conflict between Moscow and the West that would be needless, yet difficult to step away from without either side losing face.

Even without Turkey, Russia and the United States already have a highly complicated and difficult relationship when it comes to Syria. Washington and Moscow each claim to have a common foe in ISIS. But each country has made the protection of their different allies their top priority. Russia works primarily to protect Assad. The U.S. looks out for its so-called "moderate rebels." Each nation keeps getting pushed to confront ISIS, but they are simultaneously supporting rivals in anticipation of an internationally brokered ceasefire and peace. Turkey has done nothing but create complications for both sides, in an already confusing situation.

At the same time, Turkey is taking advantage of our European partners, promising to slow the flow of migrants and refugees to Europe only if Europe coughs up a tremendous amount of cash. The Turks also want to be able to grant their millions of citizens EU visas. Essentially, Turkey's proposition is that they'll stop the flow of Syrians, if only Europe opens the door wide to Turks.

Like so many other states in the region, Turkey's alliance with the United States is now high-risk and low-upside. Sixty-three years is a pretty damn good run in the history of diplomacy. But now is the time to ease our way to an amicable divorce


http://theweek.com/articles/591808/turkey-now-huge-liability-nato--america

Correct on all accounts I think. But what do we do about it?
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 05:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Press freedoms are being destroyed, clear evidence that Turkey is no longer part of the free world.


PMSL over that one.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 02:17 am
@hawkeye10,
When was Turkey ever part of the Free World? Have you ever seen Midnight Express? It's a lot better now, and more democratic, since then, but it's never been up to western standards.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 02:31 am
@izzythepush,
It was the promise of a better Turkey and better Turks. The people of Turkey had a dream, and we though they probably would make it, and we wanted to help them as much as we could....help them to be just as good of humans as we are.

We = Europe +USA

Ya, that did not work. It failed just like Lebanon, which tried the same thing. I should have known that Turkey was not joining Europe when I saw in Munich during the 90's most of the Germans I knew (working class, often lower) despising the Turks, the ones in Germany the most. They can run the Gyro cart or even a gyro stand, and the women can clean, otherwise Verpiss dich! (I am exaggerating like Trump but you know what I am saying, right?)
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 03:39 am
@hawkeye10,
This whole turkish thing is about thievery and profiting from human suffering.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/324563-isis-russia-turkey-syria/
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 04:21 am
@hawkeye10,
You're saying something we already know, that you hang out with racists. And because Turkey is one of the largest ethnic groups in Germany they're the ones the racists are going to have most problems with.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 01:21 pm

Islamic State beheads Russian citizen (a Chechen who was likely an FSB asset):

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/12/03/ISIS-video-purportedly-shows-killing-of-Russian-spy.html

http://www.rt.com/politics/324595-kadyrov-promises-to-avenge-russian/
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 03:41 pm
Quote:
Germany has reportedly drawn up plans to prevent sharing intelligence with its Nato ally Turkey as it prepares to support international air strikes against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

German Tornado aircraft are to commence reconnaissance flights over Syria and Iraq after the country’s parliament on Friday voted to deploy up to 1,200 military personnel.

Highly unsual measures have been ordered to prevent Turkey getting access to intelligence from the flights, according to Spiegel magazine.

http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-draws-up-plans-to-prevent-sharing-intelligence-with-nato-ally-turkey-2015-12

It is not clear what Erdoğan was trying to do downing a Russian plane, but it is safe to say what ever it was did not work. He now has Russia and Iraq pissed off at him, and the Europeans not trusting him.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 11:00 pm
@hawkeye10,

Quote:
It is not clear what Erdoğan was trying to do downing a Russian plane


It's clear now that he wasn't operating unilaterally.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2015 01:48 am
@Builder,
Yes?, go on with that thought...
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2015 01:52 am
@Leadfoot,
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/14/erdogan-and-the-ankara-bombing/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

WHAT'S IT LIKE LIVING IN RUSSIA TODAY? - Discussion by Mapleleaf
Russian appeal to the peoples of Europe - Discussion by gungasnake
Flavors of terrorists - Discussion by gungasnake
ISIS burning - Discussion by gungasnake
Putin's UN speech - Discussion by gungasnake
Putin Documentary - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 05:08:29