Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Liberals smarter, or more evolved ? Or both ?, thunderlips11 said:

    Strategist says

    Russia - Chechnya Islamic problem.

    Not anymore! The Russians saved the urban Chechens from their hillbilly redneck cousins funded by Saudi Arabia.

    Putie took care of 'em all, despite Saudi Arabia asking US Politicians ordering it's employees to complain and bitch the whole time he was doing it.

    You see, when Chechen hillbillies bombed Russia, Russia utterly eradicated them from the Earth down to the last man. Even the final holdout gang was tracked down in the Caucasus and ambushed by Spetznaz.

    When Saudi Arabians hit the WTC, US Politicians attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lybia and Syria, but not the homeland of the criminals.

    Once upon a time a Russian diplomat was kidnapped by an Islamic Terror Group. The KGB grabbed some Wahabi clerics and sent some fingers every day their diplomat remained in their custody. He was handed back untouched on the 3rd day.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Looks like someone is pissed off., thunderlips11 said:

    I love Anonymous. They are legion. They do not forget. Expect them.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Obama's immigration policy makes good sense, thunderlips11 said:

    adarmiento says

    sbh says

    No laws get passed to hold employers responsible for hiring illegals

    There are already laws to hold employers responsible. What is not happening is the enforcement of those laws.


    You don't even need the Fed. Governor Hairpiece of Texas could easily instruct Texas LEOs and the AG to investigate conspiracies to violate labor laws and amass a pantload of wealth from asset forfeiture, much less jail time. He doesn't, because those people are his base.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Obama's immigration policy makes good sense, thunderlips11 said:

    Well, SBH, the Republicans are of course FOS on immigration; they love legal and illegal immigrants for their businesses. Keeps wages down.

    They can look tough on immigration by building absurd drones and walls and cameras, which do nothing but makes them look good, while helping out their MIC friends who will build and probably operate the drones.

    Nevermind the reason they are here is because welfare addict right-wing state Big Agra destroyed Mexican Farmers with Fugitive Traitors/Free Trade.

    Last thing big agra and meatpackers want is less illegal immigration. It might allow wages to rise or unions to re-assert themselves. Caesar Chavez himself was aware that illegal immigration and guest workers made unionization almost impossible to sustain in the longterm.

    This country is so entirely fucked.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Obama's immigration policy makes good sense, thunderlips11 said:

    Sure, let's legalize more undocumented workers than all of the mostly minimal wage service jobs we've created in the past few years.

    Sounds moderate.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Executive producer of RT has hanged himself in a bathroom., thunderlips11 said:

    Mysterious deaths of journalists or whistleblowers and the quickness of authorities to quickly drop investigations never happens in the USA.

    Right Karen Silkwood? The Deborah "DC Madame" Palfrey? Dr. Shane Todd? Dorothy Kilgallen? Michael Hastings?

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Executive producer of RT has hanged himself in a bathroom., thunderlips11 said:

    Remember Folks, worry about Muslim Dirty Bombs, don't worry about interfering the Russians' backyard.

    You know, the guys with 1000s of ICBMs and SSBNs. Not to mention Tactical Nukes that can reach into Germany from Kaliningrad.

    The Russians are just fine with us messing around in Kiev, the same way we wouldn't mind if the Russians screwed around in Mexico City or Ottawa, started sending Spetznaz to train the Mexican Army and Federales, and talked about building Airbases in Baja California and the Yucatan.

    Frankly, I don't know why Putin hasn't marched into Kiev yet. Nothing we can do about it. Don't think the Russians won't. This is an existential issue for them.

    Our shitty, moronic leaders are maintaining and improving alliances - fuck, they're the stooges - of the Wahabi Lobby in the Middle East.

    We should be partnering with Russians to smash the Wahabis together. Russia not only has a long history of advancing against Islam successfully, but moderating and/or converting Muslims into moderates, even Christians. Few other countries can boast of that success record. The offer has been made over and over again.

    Let's risk nuclear war over a handful 19th Century "We're really Vikings" bullshit of Galician Nazi Symp Pole-lynching, Jew-killing Redneck Peasant Mullet-heads (er, Khokhol heads).

    China and Russia are getting closer and closer as a result of Neocon/Neoliberal policies.

    There's probably a Sino-Russia pact mutual defense pact coming soon. Their worst weapon, other than ICBMs, is Economic. The US is heavily, heavily dependent on Chinese goods, not just in Retail, but everything from Drywall to Wafer Boards. Our entire supply chain that runs through China ain't gonna be replaced in a few days.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Executive producer of RT has hanged himself in a bathroom., thunderlips11 said:

    From your source:

    Source in the law enforcement agencies reported that he did not leave a suicide note. Relatives say that the journalist has recently suffered from depression.

    Kostylev became a major producer of RIA "News" in July of 2013. He was engaged in breeding media resources to "new level", created special projects for the Olympics in Sochi, promote and develop special projects in the international arena.

    Prior to RIA "Novosti" Kostylev worked in "Movie Park», Harper's Bazaar, «Vedomosti", "Time of news". In 2003-2007 he edited the department of culture in "the Newspaper", and in 2010-2012 was zamglavreda edition.

    Nothing about RT, it's about RIA Novosti - a different media organization.

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    Just for fun: Crazy theory I came across - the F-35 is based on Yak-141, the prototyped but never-produced successor to the Yak-38.

    Some of the "evidence" is touched upon here, last paragraph, "Cooperation with Lockheed-Martin":

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    Heraclitusstudent says

    You're talking of current drones. I'm talking of what can be done. They can take more G's because they are not limited by what a pilot can take.

    It can be done - with tradeoffs.

    The Current Drones are frail by design - the airframe, not the pilot - can't handle >2G maneuvers. This is to keep them light and fluffy so they can loiter for long periods of time.

    Bulk 'em up, and you're losing the loiter time and range. And you might need better engines - or less payload, including avionics and sensors. Want to add more capacity to operate independently? Then you'll need to increase the weight of everything, the spread of the wings (less stealthy now, too), and of course costs.

    Will the new drones still be C-17 transportable at the new size and weight?

    When the costs sharply increase because you're turning them into independent, computerized combat aircraft, can you afford to swarm them and lose them?

    Heraclitusstudent says

    If you don't have vision, you at least have radar signals from the missile guiding system.

    Assuming the missile is active radar guided. It could be passively homing in on the drone's radar. It could be an IR guided missile. If the drone is equipped with ETDS, that's another layer of complexity, plus you'd have to give it the agility to actually jink and turn inside a missile on it's own. Not to mention the current drone turboprops can't really reach speeds that making turning inside missiles easy.

    AAA Gunfire would also be a problem (gee, I wonder why drones are built to fly at high altitudes?). A human pilot can see the tracers. A dedicated ground attack craft has better armor and more countermeasures.
    Heraclitusstudent says

    These problems are being solved. In a few years these will be commodities. I would think the military would have top notch solutions (for what we pay for it).

    We've known about V/STOL for a while, but making a plane that can toe the line with similar generation fighters while being safe to operate has still not been achieved. Check out the operational accident rate per hours flown with the OV-22 and AV-8B.

    Land-based drones are similarly limited. The US Army was testing one that was louder than the loudest weed-whacker I ever heard. Good luck on a platoon sneaking up on the bad guys with a drone that sounds like a whole band of Hell's Angels on Harleys riding through town.

    Heraclitusstudent says

    A good drone can act quasi autonomously until the kill decision. You don't need that much communication. Or you can relay it through many different drones.

    Again, more coding, more capabilities, increased cost. Communications are active emissions that can be detected, jammed, and attacked with passive homing guidance systems.

    You'll get to a point where an autonomous drone is just as, or more expensive, but still less versatile in the face of a diverse-threat environment that a combat aircraft with a crew.

    Heraclitusstudent says

    What if you have hundreds of drones made of plastic emitting radar waves intermittently flying above the ceiling of enemy planes? There is a point where you just to admit that there will be radar waves and stop worrying about it.

    Problem: MQ-9 Reaper
    Cost: $17,000,000 in 2013 dollars

    AS-17 "Krypton"
    Cost: $550,000 in 2010 dollars. That warhead is overkill.
    SA-17 aka BUK
    (and many other SAM models)
    R-27, R-77 and others.

    Problem: Needs satellite, at least in "kill phase"
    Solution: ASAT

    Not saying it isn't solvable, but the more complex these things become, the more the cost savings evaporates and the more fragile the system is overall.

    They become too expensive to swarm the enemy.

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    curious2 says

    thunderlips11, you know I respect you and often Like your comments, but this thread shows a different side of you and you seem to be mistaken. You're probably right about the F-35, but as noted above, drone swarms will soon render even your preferred aircraft obsolete. I see somebody went through and Liked your praise of Kissinger and Disliked all criticism of him, but AF is probably correct in calling Kissinger an (unindicted) war criminal. The horrifying losses in southeast Asia, and the terrible tragedies in Latin America (specifically in Chile and Argentina) have his fingerprints all over them. It's hard to imagine how someone in Paraguay would not have heard about Chile, for example.

    Thank you for your kind words, Curious.

    I agree - Kissinger is a war criminal, no doubt about it.

    Justme I think summed it up: When Kissinger - who never shied away from engineering a coup or giving cover for an annexation or war - warns about a foreign policy being too dangerous, we should take heed.

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    Heraclitusstudent says

    Yes but the source could be anywhere: on the ground, on high altitude drones, etc...

    And of course on the missiles themselves.

    Depends. If you're talking air-to-air radar, then a high altitude drone is mincemeat for any Weapons System from an SA-2 to the BUK, much less interception by any fighter. Remember, the Radar "on" means "HERE I AM!" There's no hiding when you're using active radar - you're emitting powerful radio waves from a source.

    Ground based radars can be bombed. AWACS can be shot down. They can all be jammed.

    You'll also need a tie in from the F-35 to the other radar source, which can be jammed - and it's easier to do so the further the plane is from the radar source.
    Heraclitusstudent says

    I would be surprised if they didn't find a good way to avoid this. In a world where face recognition can recognize individuals in facebook pictures or walking in the street.

    Face recognition is not very accurate even with high quality cameras 20 feet away.
    Remember that a drone or satellite is generally looking straight or almost straight down at somebody - from 50,000 feet at somebody's hair, not their face, rather than straight on or at a 30 degree angle on a wall mount.

    Heraclitusstudent says

    That was Vietnam. What about now? I'm sure they are a LOT more precise.

    I had linked a RAND study here a while back. AMRAAM in real life has about as many friendly kills as OPFOR kills, and those OPFOR kills are almost entirely 50s/60s era Export Grade Soviet Equipment or Helicopters with no Electronic Threat Detection Systems and no functioning C3 Network behind them, either. Most of the targets didn't even possess an intrinsic radar.

    Every frontline (and almost all of the second rate) combat aircraft in the Russian or Chinese arsenal have 360 degree Electronic Threat Detectors.

    Heraclitusstudent says

    I beg to differ. These are just the beginnings. Drones technology is bound to advance fast. They are much cheaper by nature, since a lot of the piloted planes are there just to keep the pilot alive. A drone is not substantially different than a missile except the range. It can be destroyed, so what, if you can quickly line up 10 others for a low price. And they can potentially take a lot more Gs than any pilot.

    They cannot take more Gs than a pilot, because not only are their airframes designed for long loiter times and are frail due to weight restrictions, but aggressive manuvering breaks the communications link which then has to be re-established. By default, the drones are programmed to fly straight-and-level in that instance, where they are little more than flying target drones. Additionally, drones are operating in situations against 4th Generation irregular forces where jamming communications is a total non-issue.

    There have been several situations where links with drones have been lost and not re-established even in safe environments that we know of (how many more kept secret?).

    Drones may very well be the future, but they have big flaws that have to be overcome. Which will add to the complexity, which adds to the chance of failure, and of course, cost. How to program AA combat drones? How much code is needed to program a drone to "See" white smoke trails of a SAM on it's Cameras and take appropriate action?

    Pilots and their fly-by-wire aircraft can't be jammed.

    Heraclitusstudent says

    If we have self driving cars

    Not yet. Self-driving cars require incredibly accurate and near real-time maps down to the inch.

    Heraclitusstudent says

    The same applies to boats and submarines. The heavy, vulnerable equipments designed to get men there will become obsolete.

    Boats, maybe. But it'll be impossible to guide submarines via satellite comm link for obvious reasons. Submarines still have a massive advantage of being able to close undetected.

    I do think the Aircraft Carrier is nearing obsolesence as Battleships were in 1941.

    In Summary:

    I'm skeptical but not entirely dismissive of drones. However, even assuming the various problems can be fixed, we've got at least two decades before drones can completely replace pilots. In that interim, we need a Multirole fighter replacement.

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    BTW, in Real Life, this is what happens, even against a relatively primitive opponent, when you perform close air support missions.

    No F-16 or F-35 would have made it back from this kind of punishment, if they could even be useful due to their high speeds. Those composite materials for stealth lack protective power. The idea that F-16s replace the A-10 in this role is laughable. And certainly not drones, which neither have the payload nor the awareness of targets and friendlies that an on-the-spot human pilot has.

    Finally, the idea of F-16s or F-35s using stretches of highway as combat airfields is certainly beyond their power (including for safety reasons like intakes). The A-10 was designed to use the Autobahn as improvised airfields.

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    Heraclitusstudent says

    The guy says for example we can't differentiate friends from foes. I wonder if that's still true.

    Yes, He said that Radar can't differentiate targets. But even if it did, remember that turning the radar on is like turning on a flashlight in a tunnel - it shows exactly where you are and cancels any stealth.

    Furthermore, the F-35 is only stealthy without carrying pylon payloads - wing mounted missiles, bombs, and tanks aren't stealthy and reflect radar. With only weapons in the internal bomb bay, the capacity of the F-35 is about 1/3 that of a F-105. The F-35 is not stealthy from the sides or rear, only the front.

    The thing today is IR Scanning, where the F-35's hot, most powerful combat jet engine ever made, is a liability.

    Heraclitusstudent says

    If the state of the art is you shoot from far away, then it changes the requirements.

    Then you could be shooting friend or foe in many circumstances. The technobabbler MBA USAF General's dream, for decades. This is nothing new here: it was the dream in Vietnam as well.

    The predicted kill rate of AIM-7 Sparrows in Vietnam was around 70% based on drone targets. The reality was 8%. And even then, the USAF was shooting down so many friendlies with the AIM-7, they stopped that tactic.

    Missiles, especially big fat long distance ones, are easily dodged and not at all stealthy.

    Drones have tiny payloads. What the media never emphasizes is that Drones work in groups, not alone. Generally one or two have all the sensors, and one or two have all the weaponry - which isn't much. They're also not at all manuverable, very easy to shoot down even with WW2 era equipment. Incapable of anything over 2G. And remote piloting is different that being in the craft in terms of awareness. Fine for chasing bands of people in backward 4th World Countries, not useful against any half-way modern country. Not even useful if the bands being chased have MANPADS.

    But Air Forces always go back to their biases: "We hate close air support, and want to kill aerial targets from a great distance, and do lots of strategic, deep raids", forgetting IRL lessons from past wars - and always insisting that "This Time it's Different".

    WW2: "Our Norden Bombsight enables precision bombing. We'll destroy German industry in a few weeks."
    Vietnam: "Our TV guided bombs enables precision bombing. We'll destroy every NV bridge in a few weeks..."
    Serbia: "Our laser guided bombs enables precision bombing. We'll destroy every Serbian tank in a few weeks."

    Rinse, wash, repeat...

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    The guy who developed the F-16 and A-10 speaks out on the F-35.

  • On 20 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    bob2356 says

    The F-105 was a very good plane for what it was designed for. Low altitude high speed bomb delivery. Specifically it was designed for low altitude delivery of nuclear weapons. It as the fastest plane at low altitude until I believe the F-15 and could carry three times the bomb load of a B-17 or B-24. Considering they were used day in and day out to bomb Hanoi which was ringed by god only knows how many AA and SAM sights along with lots of NV fighters the F105 had a remarkably low loss rate. They even managed 27.5 air to air victories. The early D models had engine problems, but these were worked out. Supposedly the nickname Thud came from the sound of an early D model hitting the ground.

    It was the only plane taken out of Vietnam Service due to Combat Losses. I think it was first operational around 1960 and was already headed towards the reserves by the early 70s and taken even out of the Air Force National Guard by the early 80s.

    ~300 of all ~800 F-105s produced were lost to enemy fire. It may have shot down 27.5 planes, but it lost at least 14 in one month to enemy aircraft alone.

    The North Vietnamese had less planes in their air force than the USAF planes that took part in a raid where 1950s Korean War era MiG-17s shot down at least 2 F-105s in early 1965.,9171,841817,00.html#ixzz0r9PxRuDR

    Once the MiG-21 appeared in 1966 and the VAF started to grow in size...

    Such tactics were sometimes helped by weird American practices. For example, in late 1966 the F-105 formations used to fly every day at the same time in the same flight paths and used the same callsigns over and over again. The North Vietnamese realized that and took the chance: in December 1966 the MiG-21 pilots of the 921st FR intercepted the "Thuds" before they met the escorting F-4s, downing 14 F-105s without any losses.

    That's the USAF line anyway, and we know from Korea that the USAF lies like a dog about kill ratios. In fairness, all Air Forces do. That's why we've got to balance out USAF baloney with Soviet and Vietnamese baloney when looking at the claims.

    And the USAF never learns. The F-117 in Serbia was shot down because of operational laziness, it kept flying the same path over and over again. And, the USAF is dedicated to using Radar-Guided/BVR missiles and thinks it can use them very effectively for Air Superiority missions:

    What about training? In mid-1960's the American pilots were focused on the use of air-to-air missiles (like the radar homing AIM-7 Sparrow and IR AIM-9) to win the air battles. However, they had forgotten that a skillful pilot in the cockpit was as important as the weapons he uses. The VPAF knew that, and trained its pilots to exploit the superb agility of the MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21 - getting into close combat, where the heavy Phantoms and "Thuds" were at a disadvantage. Only in 1972, when the "Top Gun" program improved the skills in aerial combat of USN Phantom pilots like Randall Cunningham, and the F-4E appeared with a 20 mm built-in Vulcan cannon, could the Americans neutralize that Vietnamese edge.

    The F-35 is another USAF weapon truck, not a dogfighter.

  • On 19 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    The F-35 has to be a shit fighter, unless the laws of physics were suspended.

    Small wings and a fat fuselage = shitty agility at lower altitudes, were most of the dogfights and all the close air support happens. The F-35's agility is on par with 2nd Generation Jets, which is why I call it "Lead Sled II" after the F-105.

    Fortunately, if we get into a war, we still have the plans for the A-10, F-15 and the Super Hornet.

  • On 19 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    Strategist says

    We don't want a war with Russia or China.

    Then stop poking them.

    Kissinger, btw, tried to get us the hell out of Vietnam with something of our prestige intact. Impossible to do because the Neocons of their day - the Cold War Hawks - got us hopelessly mired in it before Kissinger took over in 1969.

  • On 19 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    .Heraclitusstudent says

    Maybe a few people in Washington thought a new cold war would line their pockets? What do we know?

    Well, the F-35 "Lead Sled II" is going to cost a trillion bucks or more. Gotta find some way to justify it, especially when people say drones can take care of the 3rd world problems.

  • On 19 Nov 2014 in US Makes more Friends, thunderlips11 said:

    Strategist says

    Kissinger is 91 years old. He pees in his pants.

    Except - he knows his shit and has a track record of victories to prove it. When he decides to interfere with a country's affairs, it actually works, Chile, Indonesia, and the Opening of China. Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Sikorski and the rest of the idiots don't. How's Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya doin'? Are the Jihadis on the run?

    Of course US Admirals and Generals are often idiots, as evidenced that most have an MBA.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 345 milliseconds to create.