F-35

[danny76]

Military or Civilian or Private?

Bump

[Vinkman]

That is not entirely accurate... The Iraqi air force did shoot down and/or severely damage a number of coalition aircraft. The Iraqis lost 23-44 aircraft in air-air combat varying on report. The coalition lost 4-5 destroyed and 4 damaged. So the coalition enjoyed a K/D of between 5:1 and 10:1.

On the first night of the war, two F/A-18's from the carrier USS Saratoga were flying outside of Baghdad when two Iraqi MiG-25PDs interceptors from the 96th Squadron engaged them. In the beyond-visual-range (BVR) kill, one of the Iraqi MiGs piloted by lieutenant colonel Zuhair Dawood, fired an R-40 missile. The missile impacted Scott Speicher's jet head on when he was travelling Mach 0.92. The impact sent the aircraft spiraling downwards and most people believe Speicher died on the impact of the missile.

An Iraqi MiG-23 fired a R-24T missile at a F-111 on a bombing run and scored a hit, although the bomber made it safely back to base. Another similar incident occurred with the same Iraqi interceptor several minutes later, this F-111 also made it back to base despite the severe damage to the aircraft.

An Iraqi MiG-29 struck an F-111 aircraft with a R60 missile, though the sturdy F-111 stayed airworthy. Several minutes later the same pilot fired a R27 missile at a B-52G on a bombing run, severely damaging it.

It has been claimed by some sources that a Tornado (ZA467) crewed by Squadron Leader Gary Lennox and Squadron Leader Adrian Weeks was shot down on 19 January by a R-60MK missile fired from an Iraqi MiG-29 piloted by Jameel Sayhood, however this aircraft is officially recorded as having crashed on 22 January on a mission to Ar Rutbah.

In what was the last aerial victory for the Iraqi Air Force before Operation Iraqi Freedom, an Iraqi MiG-25 destroyed an American UAV RQ-1 Predator after the drone opened fire on the Iraqi aircraft with a Stinger missile.

Thanks for the info. 

[GScholz]

I think my point was: lets buy something else before we get rid of the thing wea lready has that does the same job.

F35 is damned sexy though

Harrier was not retired because they were useless, but because they had flown up all the hours on them. They would have had to paid for expensive life-extending upgrades on the airframes to keep them flying. Norway is in a similar situation. No matter what we do we will have to replace our F-16s with new aircraft; they're just worn out.

[Vinkman]

Maneuver Warfare.  It is standard Marine doctrine for combat.  You know, that thing Pierre Sprey's buddy John Boyd invented.  The guy who saved the F-15 from becoming a "Five-Percent-Better-F-111".  

It didn't "work" in the gulf war, and you have not provided evidence it was more powerful a tactic than beyond visual range missiles. GScholz provided evidence of quite the contrary.

[GScholz]

John Boyd invented maneuver warfare doctrine? Who knew?! I always thought it was von Clausewitz...

[Vraciu]

John Boyd invented maneuver warfare doctrine? Who knew?! I always thought it was von Clausewitz...

You thought wrong (no big surprise there).  Boyd went beyond von C as did the Marines.

[GScholz]

Hardly. The problem is that Boyd misunderstood Clausewitz; much of the Patterns of Conflict that talk about Clausewitz refer to the bogeyman that Liddell-Hart set up of a "Mahdi of Mass" that led to the World War I killing fields. Moreover, it is a fair criticism that Boyd's ideas, like those of BHL, are too optimistic about the chances of avoiding direct and bloody confrontations. This is perhaps the crux of the disagreement between the two. Clausewitz does not think it is practical to undermine the enemy from within to the extent that Boyd does. Clausewitz outlined a General Theory of war that Boyd's more detailed insights about human morale, competition, and sources of power can fit into.

Boyd didn't invent; he refined.

[Changeup]

If we're being fair about MW, it's been around since the dawn of time.  It's changed operationally as the face of war changed. 

Terrorists at-large are immune to MW.  Now, if you can get them into one country for a BBQ, have at it.

Unconventional warfare will rule the battles of the future.

[Vraciu]

If we're being fair about MW, it's been around since the dawn of time.  It's changed operationally as the face of war changed.  

Terrorists at-large are immune to MW.  Now, if you can get them into one country for a BBQ, have at it.

Unconventional warfare will rule the battles of the future.

Unconventional warfare has ruled battles for centuries.  (Not all battles, of course.) Nothing really new there.

[Vraciu]

Hardly. The problem is that Boyd misunderstood Clausewitz; much of the Patterns of Conflict that talk about Clausewitz refer to the bogeyman that Liddell-Hart set up of a "Mahdi of Mass" that led to the World War I killing fields. Moreover, it is a fair criticism that Boyd's ideas, like those of BHL, are too optimistic about the chances of avoiding direct and bloody confrontations. This is perhaps the crux of the disagreement between the two. Clausewitz does not think it is practical to undermine the enemy from within to the extent that Boyd does. Clausewitz outlined a General Theory of war that Boyd's more detailed insights about human morale, competition, and sources of power can fit into.

Boyd didn't invent; he refined.

Refined.  Expanded.  Developed.  Like the Wright Flyer vs an A380.    Clausewitz didn't invent it either.  He was just the first to write it down in its basic form.

[Changeup]

Unconventional warfare has ruled battles for centuries.  (Not all battles, of course.) Nothing really new there.

You ignored the primary statement and I forgot one word


All

[Vraciu]

You ignored the primary statement and I forgot one word


All

No, I didn't--it required no comment--and no, it won't be "all" because: "That which has been is that which shall be."   There is no "end of history" no matter how much we want that to be so.

The ratios may fluctuate, but...

[Changeup]

No, I didn't--it required no comment--and no, it won't be "all" because: "That which has been is that which shall be."   There is no "end of history" no matter how much we want that to be so.

The ratios may fluctuate, but...

So your predicting a another world war?

[Vraciu]

So your predicting a another world war?

So you're ruling one out?   (Or even a large regional conflict, say, China vs Russia?)


(You're missing a couple things.  Here you go: ----> ' e )

[Changeup]

So you're ruling one out?   (Or even a large regional conflict, say, China vs Russia?)


(You're missing a couple things.  Here you go: ----> ' e )

I am ruling them out, yes.  None of the primary powers will find use in risking so much for so little.  There are far too many non-state players with agendas that are easily manipulated by super-powers and when those manipulations go awry, you'll end up with country skirmishes, dictatorial replacements, government changes and ruling class upheavals.  World wars have simply outlived their usefulness.  

Additionally, NATO is fairly punkish but still wields the forum to create many alliances that, if caught early enough, will stop invasions of land, sea or airspace.  One big guy at a bar ends up starting a fight with the entire bar?  Not likely and even though he may land the first few punches, the rest of the bar will respond because in this particular case, the patrons are all off-duty cops.


China vs Russia would never be defined as a large regional war, lol but you did make a funny.